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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 8-22 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, and 10-15 have been amended and claims 21-22 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that claims 1-5 and 8-22 are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the amended claims recite features “regarding a bonus mode, and determinations made at a gaming device” which are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but server as a practical application and a technical solution to facilitate a useful machine-to-human interaction that is meaningful to an individual while playing a wagering game (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Applicant’s representative further argues that the claims recite a technical improvement to the gaming device and technology of electronic gaming devices/machines such as: “determine, at a gaming device, that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met, wherein the gaming device enables, executes, and disables a bonus mode based on the gameplay condition” and “enable, in response to the gaming device determining the replacement game result, the bonus mode, wherein the replacement game result corresponds to the bonus mode” that are conducted at the gaming device which integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). Finally, the Applicant’s representative argues that any alleged abstract idea is implemented with, or used in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim which as a whole are determining numerous features of the wagering game and enabling, executing and disabling a bonus mode that corresponds the replacement result based on the game play condition are improvements to the technological field of electronic gaming and electronic gaming devices/machines that are patentable subject matter (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the determinations of the bonus game mode, these limitations are found to a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a wagering game. Specifically, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a bonus game mode based on certain gameplay conditions which is directed the type of fundamental economic activity that the courts have indicated is directed to an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, the claims are found to recite result-oriented functionality defined by rules and/or instructions of the bonus game (e.g., enables/turn on, executes/implements, disables/turn off) or game rules to be performed by the highly-generalized gaming device of the gaming device that amounts to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, performing extra solution activity, and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because determinations of the bonus game mode that are recited by the claims are not found to serve as a practical application or a technological solution but to a certain method of organizing human activity which include rules and/or instructions for managing a bonus mode of a wagering game.
With respect to limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application, the Applicant’s representative argues that the amendments which recite: “determine, at a gaming device, that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met, wherein the gaming device enables, executes, and disables a bonus mode based on the gameplay condition” and “enable, in response to the gaming device determining the replacement game result, the bonus mode, wherein the replacement game result corresponds to the bonus mode” are conducted “at the gaming device” recite steps which integrate the claim into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “[D]etermining, at a gaming device, that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met, where the gaming device enables, executes and disables a bonus mode based on the game play conditions” recites an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion or a rule/instruction for managing a wagering game. The additional element of “at the gaming device” recites only the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. This type of desired functional result implemented by a highly-generalized computing device in its ordinary capacity to perform a wagering game for economic or other task amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception that does not integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)). It follows that the claims fail to recite an improvement to gaming technology or electronic gaming devices as the courts have indicated that a common place business method (e.g., managing a wagering game) being application on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)II).
Similarly, the limitation “enable, in response to the gaming device determining the replacement game result, the bonus mode, wherein the replacement game result corresponds to the bonus mode” recites a rules and/or instructions for managing a replacement game result of the bonus mode of the wagering game which is directed to the abstract idea itself. The additional elements of “in response to the gaming device determining” recites a desired functional result by utilizing the ordinary function of a highly-generalized computing device that amount to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea that is not indicative of integration to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
Finally, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite use of a particular machine (e.g., a gaming device capable of determining numerous features of a wagering game) (see Remarks, pg. 12-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the MPEP, a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). As noted in the Final Rejection, dated 2/4/26, the recited components of a gaming device comprise a “processor circuit”, “a memory comprising machine-readable instructions” and a Slot Machine Interface Board (SMIB) which are all conventional and well-known computer components to one of ordinary skill in the electronic gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040; Roemer – 0024, 0032, 0038). It follows that the recited gaming device recites a highly-generalized machine or apparatus where the electronic gaming machine involvement is extra solution activity or a field of use that would not be indicative of the recited machine to amount to integrate the claim into a particular machine. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 and 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim , recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas which are underlined in exemplary claim 1 below:
A system comprising:
processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine, at a gaming device, that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met, wherein the gaming device enables, executes, and disables a bonus mode based on the gameplay condition; -certain method of organizing human activity;
receive the wager for the wagering game at a gaming device; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determine, at the gaming device, a game award for the wagering game based on the determination that the game play condition has been met; -certain method organizing human activity and/or mental process;
store the determined game award in an escrow in the memory until completion of a next game cycle; -certain method of organizing human activity/fundamental economic activity;
determine, at the gaming device, an initial game result for the wagering game; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determine, at the gaming device, a replacement game result corresponding to the determined game award for the wagering game, wherein determining the replacement game result includes selecting, at the gaming device,from a set of outcomes stored in the memory, an outcome that corresponds to the determined game award; -certain method organizing human activity and/mental process;
in response to detecting a cancellation event comprising removal of a player tracking card from a card reader coupled to a slot machine interface board (SMIB) prior to initiation of the next game cycle, command the SMIB, cancellation of the determined game award from the escrow to prevent payment to a different player; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
enable, in response to the gaming device determining the replacement game result, the bonus mode, wherein the replacement game result corresponds to the bonus mode; -certain method of organizing human activity; and
upon the initiation of the next game cycle, after conclusion of the bonus game, and without detecting the cancellation event, cause a display device of the gaming device to display the replacement game result; and award the game award from the escrow by automatically crediting a monetary amount that equals the determined game award to a credit meter of the gaming device and updating at least one accounting meter to reflect that credit. -certain method organizing human activity.
The underlined limitations, as indicated above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a wagering game bonus mode and escrow for mitigating risk in relation to the wagering game. Additionally, certain limitations recite mental processes because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that could be performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “processor circuit”, “memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor” “at a/the gaming device” “stored in the memory” “coupled to a slot machine interface board (SMIB)” “command the SMIB,” “in response to the gaming device” and “cause a display device of the gaming device to display the replacement game result” recite result-oriented functional language that invoke highly generalized computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “processor circuit”, “a memory comprising machine-readable instructions”, “a gaming device” and “a display device of the gaming device” when viewed as individual elements and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A) discloses a conventional gaming device comprising a processor circuit, a memory comprising computer-readable instructions”, and “a display device” to implement a wagering game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Moreover, Roemer (US 2016/0133089 A1) discloses that conventional gaming machines utilizes player input devices to input wagers, indicate a cash out and provide various other inputs and may utilize traditional player tracking systems including an slot machine interface board (see Roemer, 0024, 0032, 0038). It follows that the additional elements when viewed alone and/or as a whole amount do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 19, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 as analyzed above and is hereby incorporated herein. The claims differ in that independent Claim 19 is directed to a gaming device embodiment. The claim is found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding independent Claim 18, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim as analyzed above and is hereby incorporated herein. Independent Claim 18 further recites “in response to a determination that the initial game result is a winning game result, displaying the initial game result, and awarding an initial game award based on the initial game result” “in response to a determination that the initial game result is not a winning game result,” and “in response to detecting a cancellation event comprising a tile condition, a player cash-out event, or removal of a player tracking card prior to initiation of the next game cycle, command, via a slot machine interface board (SMIB) or a gaming device interface, cancellation of the determined game award from the escrow to prevent payment to a different player, and upon the initiation of the next game cycle without detecting the cancellation event,” which further recite steps directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea into a practical application, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, independent Claim 18 is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 8-17 and 20-22, the limitations of the claims have been analyzed and were found to recite further steps of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims -20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "receive the wager for the wagering game at the gaming device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the wager” in this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-18 inherit this deficiency from independent Claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-15 and 21-22, recite the limitations “the determination that the game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met” is directed to the same and/or different wagering game recited by independent Claims 1 and 18-19 from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights