Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organization 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 1-7 recite a method comprising:
receiving, from a first video poker gaming device, a first link token;
receiving, by a computing device in communication with a first video poker gaming device and second video gaming device, from the first video poker gaming device, a first link token signal generated by the first video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a first link token;
receiving, by the computing device, from the second video gaming device, a second link token signal generated by the second video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a second link token;
linking, based on the first link token signal and the second link token signal, the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device; and
based on linking the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronizing gameplay at the first video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device, wherein synchronizing gameplay comprises causing output of identical poker hands at both the firs video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device; and
based on synchronizing game play on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronously outputting on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, an end link option;
receiving, from the first video poker (game) gaming device, an end link signal associated with the end link option; and
disassociating, based on the end link signal the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device.
Claims 8-14 recite one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing processor executable instructions thereon, that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive, by a computing device in communication with a first video poker gaming device and a second video poker gaming device from the first video poker gaming device, a first link token signal generated by the video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a first link token;
receiving, by the computing device from the second video poker gaming device, a second link token signal generated by the second video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a second link token;
link, based on the first link token signal and the second link token signal, the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker gaming device;
based on linking the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronize gameplay at the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, wherein synchronizing gameplay comprises causing output of identical poker hands at both the firs video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device; and
based on synchronizing game play on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronously output on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker gaming (game) device, an end link option;
receive, from the first video poker (game) gaming device, an end link signal with the end link option; and
disassociate, based on the end link signal the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device.
Claims 15-20 recite an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive, by computing device in communication with a first video poker gaming device and second video poker gaming device, from the first video poker gaming device, a first link token signal generated by the first video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a first link token;
receive, by the computing device, from the second video poker gaming device, a second link token signal generated by the second video poker gaming device in response to receipt of a second link token;
link, based on the first link token signal and the second link token signal, the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device;
based on linking the video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronize gameplay at the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device wherein synchronizing gameplay comprises causing output of identical poker hands at both the firs video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device; and
based on synchronizing gameplay on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, synchronously output on the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device, an end link option;
receive, from the first video poker (game) gaming device, an end link signal with the end link option; and
disassociate, based on the end link signal the first video poker (game) gaming device and the second video poker (game) gaming device.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of managing a game. Managing a game is a management of social activities and therefore an organization of human activity. The underlined limitations recite a management of a social activity (poker games) by linking a first poker game to second poker game using a token, and providing an option to end the link from disassociating the linked poker game.
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 1-20 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 1-20 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 non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction, the gaming device, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium display device are not used in a meaningful way. These components are generic computer components in the art or generic gaming device components used to perform the abstract idea. The link token signal generated by the poker gaming device in response to receipt of a link token is an electronic embodiment of the abstract idea. They are used to connect two gaming devices in a network and therefore implement the games in an electronic embodiment. The additional elements are used to implement the game in an electronic embodiment. The use of these elements generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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.
Claims 1-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium a method and apparatus comprising or process instructions/steps with a processor, first gaming device, second gaming device, and video display devices.
These components are well known, routine and conventional in the art. Griswold (US 2006/0040741) discloses these components are typical components of electronic and microprocessor based gaming machines and are known in the art (paragraphs 4-5). Griswold discloses typically an electronic gaming machine will have a housing (cabinet, paragraph 5), display device (video displays, paragraph 6), input devices including: a device for generating indicia related to the identify of a player (player tracking units, paragraph 4), an actuator for imitating a game (keypads, buttons, levers, touchscreen, paragraph 4), an acceptor (coin acceptor, paragraph 4), a validator (bill validator, paragraph 4) a bet input device (keypads, buttons, levers, touchscreen, paragraph 4), and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (software devices, software components of the gaming device, paragraph 4).
The conventional gaming components as claimed are used conventionally and are not sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The steps of receiving a first link token signal generated by a first gaming device in response to receipt of a first link token and receiving a second link token signal generated by a second gaming device in response to receipt of a second link token is a step of communicating data. Communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 10-20 providing options, providing the first and second gaming devices via a network, determining and associating the identifiers, determining gameplay, receiving an output indication and dissociating the devices, causing an output of a cash out event. These limitations further recite steps of managing a game by following rules and therefore recite steps of organizing human activity, or post solution activity (displaying output), using conventional computer components (network).
The steps of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Furthermore, the steps of displaying information. 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites,
based on synchronizing game play on the first video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device, synchronously outputting on the first video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device, an end link option. Applicant’s specification fails to teach that the end link option is synchronously outputted on the first video poker gaming device and the second video poker gaming device.
Applicant’s specification describe and End Link button 995 (paragraph 132) and Fig. 12b. However, there is no description that the end link is synchronously outputted on the first and second gaming devices. In addition, the specification discloses a second gaming device (i.e. Fig. 12a played by John) without an end link option and a first gaming device (i.e. Fig. 12b played by “Jane”) with an end link option “to break the game link between her gaming device and John’s gaming device (paragraph 132).
Claims 2-7 are rejected by dependency.
Claims 8-20 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claim integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims recite additional element of a first video poker gaming device, first link token, a second video poker gaming device, a second link token, end link option, end link signal, linking the poker game, synchronizing game play and dissociating the poker games.
The additional limitations Applicant mentioned in the arguments are directed to an abstract idea or implementing the abstract idea in an electronic embodiment using a generic computer or generic gaming device. The specification discloses that the term “electronic gaming device” is meant to include various devices such as electro-mechanical spinning-reel type slot machines, video slot machines, and video poker machines, for instance. Other gaming devices may include computer-based gaming machines, wireless gaming devices, multi-player gaming stations, modified personal electronic gaming devices (such as cell phones), personal computers, server-based gaming terminals, and other similar devices. The gaming devices are generic computer components in the art or generic gaming device components used to perform the abstract idea. The link token signal generated by the poker gaming device in response to receipt of a link token is an electronic embodiment of the abstract idea. They are used to connect two gaming devices in a network and therefore implement the games in an electronic embodiment. The additional elements are used to implement the game in an electronic embodiment. The use of these elements generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the additional elements including gaming devices, and link tokens amount to significantly more by improving a technology. Applicant argues that the invention improves technology by allowing users to share a casino gambling experience by playing identical poker hands. The invention provide a solution by linking gaming machines. However, the gaming devices are not used in a meaningful way. These components are generic computer components in the art or generic gaming device components used to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements are used to implement the game in an electronic embodiment. The use of these elements links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to technology or technical field in using the tokens or identifiers. The additional elements of a first link token and second link token do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application. The additional elements considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims sufficiently limit the use of the abstract idea by linking, synchronizing, and disassociating the video poker game by receiving an end link signal. However, these limitations recite the abstract idea of managing a game by following rules. The additional elements considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application with a particular machine by using a “video poker gaming device”. One of ordinary skilled in the art would not understand the claimed “video poker gaming device” to encompass all possible gaming device and to include virtual slots or virtual craps games. However, the claimed “video poker gaming device” is not interpreted to encompass all possible gaming device. In light of the specification, the claimed “video poker gaming device” is a generic gaming device. The specification discloses that the term “electronic gaming device” is meant to include various devices such as electro-mechanical spinning-reel type slot machines, video slot machines, and video poker machines, for instance. Other gaming devices may include computer-based gaming machines, wireless gaming devices, multi-player gaming stations, modified personal electronic gaming devices (such as cell phones), personal computers, server-based gaming terminals, and other similar devices.
Applicant argues that the claimed “video poker gaming device” is not a generic computer. However as indicated above, the specification describes the gaming device to be a generic device. The claimed gaming device is interpreted as a generic gaming device that is well known, routine and conventional in the art. There is no clear description in the specification that describes the video poker gaming device to be a “particular machine”. Furthermore, the claims do not claim the video poker gaming device as a “particular machine”.
In Step 2b, Applicant argues that the additional elements as a whole amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. However, the additional elements individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The additional elements individually and as whole are well known routine and conventional functions.
35 USC 112a
As indicated in Applicant’s arguments, that paragraph 132 describe an End Link button, which is used to end or break a prior linked gaming machine. However, there is no description that the end link is synchronously outputted on the first and second gaming devices.
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