DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status Of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 7 are drawn to a system.
Claims 8 – 14 are drawn to a method.
Claims 9 – 20 are drawn to a CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 7 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A gaming system for managing play of a game in a vessel, the gaming system comprising:
a mobile devices; and
at least one server operable to perform the operations associated with the mobile device including interacting with a rules database maintaining rules configurable to determine whether to permit or deny fund transfers to the mobile device, the at least one server comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to :
receive a request from the mobile device to play the game in the vessel,
determine a global position of the vessel with respect to earth based on the received request,
determine a local position of the mobile device within the vessel based on the received request,
determine if the received request includes a fund request,
interact with the rules database to determine if at least one of the configurable rules is satisfied based at least in part on a time stamp included in the received request,
enable the mobile device to play the game in the vessel responsive to determining that the received request included the fund request and that funds associated with the fund request and for play of the game are available to the mobile device based at least in part on the global position of the vessel and on the local position of the mobile device relative to the vessel, and
determining that the at least one of the configurable rules was satisfied based at least in part on the time stamp, and
transmit the game to the mobile device responsive to enabling the mobile device
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Method Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are a system for managing a game wherein a game is enabled based upon a time stamped game request associated with a fund request based upon physical positioning with respect to a vessel and the earth. This falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., enablement of a game according to gaming rules or instructions) and mental processes wherein a human observes positioning data of vessel and mobile device with respect to the timing of a fund request and enabling gaming based upon a comparison of rules to the timing and positioning data.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processors, memory, mobile devices, servers.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer processors, databases, memory, mobile devices, servers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, US 2008/0126529 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0006] The conventional art provides a plurality of online game services, such as a GOSTOP game, a Hula game, a poker game, a chess game, and the like, via a game site called `hangame`. In FIG. 1, a user who uses any one of user personal computers (PC) 101 and 102 accesses to any one of game servers 104, 105, and 106 via the Internet 103. The game servers 104, 105, and 106 provide an online game that the user desires to play. As an example, the game servers 104 and 105 may provide a GOSTOP game service, and the game server 106 may provide a Hula game service. In this case, the user's login/logout was respectively performed in each of the game servers 104, 105, and 106. Also, the user's login/logout status information was respectively maintained in each of the game servers 104, 105, and 106. Accordingly, in the conventional art, a user who has logged in one game server was not able to know a current status of another user who has logged in another game server. Here, the current status may include, for example, information about whether another user has logged in or logged out from the game server, or a game that the another user is playing.
[0007] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a network connection of service servers and a location server for managing users' location information according to the conventional art.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, US 2006/0052159 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0105] FIG. 4 illustrates example progressive game control information, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. The game control information may be maintained by a progressive game server, e.g., in various forms of memory or storage devices, in a relational database, with object-oriented data structures, or other conventional approaches. It will be appreciated that other information besides that shown may be maintained by the progressive game server, and that in alternative embodiments, the information may be maintained in different formats, or in other locations, e.g., partly on local servers or game terminals.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues with respect to Prong One, Step 2A that the claims, specifically amended claim 1 provides a “specific technical mechanisms of achieving a beneficial technical solution in relation to implementing and leveraging a rules database. The rules database maintains configurable rules for determine whether to permit or deny fund transfers, for instance, so the rules can be updated to set and/or adjust specific criteria stored in the rules database in changing environments and conditions. In particular, there is a specific, technical implementation in an electronic gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to incorporate and use the rules database.” (Remarks page 9 – 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the maintaining of configurable rules, that are then used to determine by comparison of timestamped data with respect the rule to allow a game to proceed or to permit or deny a fund transfer, amounts to an observation (observing the data and timestamp), evaluation (comparing the data to the rule) and judgement (making a determination to permit or deny the game and/or fund request). These type of rule based comparisons have been performed and can be performed by humans utilizing mental steps and/or pen and paper. For instance when a player walks into a game establishment that only allows gaming at designated times and/or locations and requests to play a game card game and the gaming establishment employee must determine the current time and if gaming is allowed at that particular time when the player requested to play.
Regarding Prong Two, Step 2A, the Applicant states, “Some implementations of independent claim 1 provide one or more improvements in the functioning (including implementation, usefulness and performance) of electronic gaming systems including various servers and a mobile gaming device. The improvements are apparent by the absence of any prior art rejections in the Office Action, as discussed in the November 17th interview. Moreover, implementations of claim 1 provide a specific technical application of implementing and using a specific rules database maintaining configurable rules for determining whether to permit or deny fund transfers, for instance, so the rules can be updated to set and/or adjust specific criteria stored in the rules database in changing environments and conditions.” (Remarks page 10 – 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the absence of prior art rejections does not automatically equate to the integration into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. The Examiner further notes that the Applicant alleges that the claims provide specific technical improvements or applications, but beyond the mere allegation of a specific technical improvement, the Applicant fails to provide evidence of what specific technical improvement is actually provided or how the functioning of the computer is improved by the implementation and applying of rules to permit or deny fund transfers. Similar reasoning applies to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Step 2B, wherein the Applicant merely alleges that the claims are not well understood, conventional and well-known by the absence of a prior art rejection. Regarding Step 2B, Examiner further points to the above rejection stating: “Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer processors, databases, memory, mobile devices, servers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.”
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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/Ross A Williams/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
5/6/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights