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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 18-29 are pending. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are directed to statutory subject matter. The Applicant’s representative asserts that “managing an escrow” is not directed to a fundamental economic principle but in light of Ex Parte Desjardins that the claims identifies a technological improvement and claims reflect the improvement (see Remarks, pg. 8-9). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims identify a specific technical problem “where a card reader is not plugged directly into the EGM but rather into a slot machine interface board (SMIB) that communicates with the EGM over a local protocol, there is a latency or communication risk where a session might end (card removal) before the EGM processor initiates the next cycle” that mitigates a “hardware-specific problem by commanding cancellation via the SMIB” which is not directed to an abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 8-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to “managing an escrow”, the amended limitations are found to be directed to instructions and/or steps for managing an wager and an escrow which are fundamental economic principles which include mitigating risk. In particular, the claims recite result-oriented functional language intended to mitigate the determined game award during a cancellation event by preventing payment to a different player. It follows that the amended limitations are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. It follows that the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application but merely invoke “an SMIB” and “card reader” of a electronic gaming machine as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims, as a whole, embody an inventive concept that provide a particular architecture for handling interrupted states in a gaming machine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A review of the cited portions of the Specification provide merely a general statement for cancelling, but does not provide adequate technical details as to how the problem was solved using a particular Slot Machine Interface Board (SMIB) architecture or card reader. In particular, the specification nor the claims appear to be directed to solving a technical solution to a technical problem of a card reader or to improve a slot machine interface board (SMIB) but steps and/or instructions for managing an escrow which is part of managing a wagering game such as : “determine that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met”, “receive a wager”, “determine a game award”, “determine a replacement game result” and “an outcome that corresponds to the determined game award” which amounts to steps and/or instructions for managing a wagering game. It follows that the claims, as a whole, are not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem but rather directed to the abstract idea itself of a fundamental economic activity such as mitigating risk, conforming with regulatory requirements for a wagering game, mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant 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, 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 1-20 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 that a game play condition associated with a wagering game has been met; receive a wager for the wagering game at a gaming device; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determine 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 an initial game result for the wagering game; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process
determine a replacement game result corresponding to the determined game award for the wagering game, wherein determining the replacement game result includes selecting, 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; and
upon the initiation of the next game cycle 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 and escrow for mitigating risk. 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 gaming device” “stored in the memory” “coupled to a slot machine interface board (SMIB)” “command the SMIB,” and “cause a display device of the gaming device to display the replacement game result” recite result-oriented functions 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 2-17 and 20, 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.
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 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