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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17854231, 17244929, 16405945, 1645945, 62766867, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application, Application No. 17854231, 17244929, 16405945, 1645945, 62766867, fail to disclose receiving, via an input port of said image capture device, a video signal which is output from said video output of said controller of said electronic gaming device; outputting said video signal from a first output port of said image capture device to said video display of the electronic gaming device; transmitting, from a second output port of said image capture device, at least a portion of said video signal; and identifying, at said remote jackpot monitoring system and based on timing information of the one or more frames, a most recent frame in the one or more frames and a previous frame captured prior to the most recent frame. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 are directed to an abstract idea of performing a mental process. In addition, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. 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 1-2, 4-6 recite a method of monitoring an amount of a progressive jackpot which is displayed by a video display of an electronic gaming device based, comprising the steps of:
interposing, between a video output of a controller of said electronic gaming device and a video input of said video display, an image capture device, said image capture device comprising a controller, a memory and software configured to cause said controller of the image capture device to implement the steps of:
receiving, via an input port of said image capture device, a video signal which is output from said video output of said controller of said electronic gaming device;
outputting said video signal from a first output port of said image capture device to said video display of the electronic gaming device; and
transmitting, from a second output port of said image capture device, at least a portion of said video signal;
receiving, at a remote jackpot monitoring system, said portion of said video signal;
processing, at said remote jackpot monitoring system, the portion of the video to detect at least one currency symbol in one or more frames of said portion of said video signal and to extract a numerical value adjacent to said at least one currency symbol to identify said amount of said progressive jackpot;
identifying, at said remote jackpot monitoring system, and based on timing information of the one or more frames, a most recent frame in the one or more frames and a previous frame captured prior to the most recent frame;
processing, at said remote jackpot monitoring system, the most recent frame to determine a current progressive jackpot amount for the electronic gaming device;
processing, at said remote jackpot monitoring system, the previous frame to determine a previous progressive jackpot amount for the electronic gaming device;
identifying, at said remote jackpot monitoring system, the electronic gaming device based on a location of the electronic gaming device and a floor map of an environment including the electronic gaming device;
storing, at a central server connected to said remote jackpot monitoring system, an association between the identified electronic gaming device, and said current progressive jackpot amount and said previous progressive jackpot amount;
determining, at said central server, and based on the comparison, whether a progressive jackpot associated with the identified electronic gaming device was awarded between when the previous frame was captured and when the most recent frame was captured;
validating said current progressive jackpot amount when said progressive jackpot is determined to have been awarded; and
flagging said current progressive jackpot amount for audit when said progressive jackpot is determined to not have been awarded.
Claims 8, 11-12 recite configured to monitor a progressive jackpot which is displayed by a video display associated with an electronic gaming device, comprising:
an image capture device, said image capture device interposed between a video output of a controller of said electronic gaming device and a video input of said video display, and comprising a controller, a memory and software stored in said memory and configured to cause said controller of the image capture device to:
receive, via an input port of said image capture device, a video signal which is output from said video output of said controller of said electronic gaming device;
output said video signal from a first output port of said image capture device to said video display of the electronic gaming device; and
transmit, from a second output port of said image capture device, at least a portion of said video signal; and a
remote jackpot monitoring system, comprising a processor, a memory and software stored in said memory and configured to cause said controller of said electronic gaming device thereof to:
receive said portion of said video signal;
process the portion of the video signal to detect at least one currency symbol in one or more frames of said portion of said video signal and to extract a numerical value adjacent to said at least one currency symbol to identify said amount of said progressive jackpot;
identify, based on timing information of the one or more frames, a most recent frame in the one or more frames and a previous frame captured prior to the most recent frame;
process the most recent frame to determine a current progressive jackpot amount for the electronic gaming device;
process the previous frame to determine a previous progressive jackpot amount for the electronic gaming device;
identify the electronic gaming device based on a location of the electronic gaming device and a floor map of an environment including the electronic gaming device;
a central server connected to the remote jackpot monitoring system and to:
store an association between the identified electronic gaming device, said current progressive jackpot amount, and said previous progressive jackpot amount;
use the stored association to compare said current progressive jackpot amount to said previous progressive jackpot amount;
determine, based on the comparison, whether a progressive jackpot associated with the identified electronic gaming device was awarded between when the previous frame was captured and when the most recent frame was captured;
validate said current progressive jackpot amount when said progressive jackpot is determined to have been awarded; and
flag said current progressive jackpot amount for audit when said progressive jackpot is determined to not have been awarded.
The above underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process. Mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps of detecting, identifying, and determining as claimed are steps of performing an observation and evaluation. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process.
In addition, the claim recite steps of detecting, identifying, and determining jackpot amounts, a change in a progressive jackpot amount, and validating the current jackpot amount based on the determination that the previous progressive jackpot was awarded and flagging the progressive jackpot amount for audit when the progressive jackpot is determined to not have been awarded. The claims recite steps of managing and verifying jackpot amounts, which is a management of a game. A management of a game is social activity. Therefore, the claims recite steps of organizing human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 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 gaming device, controller, monitoring system and servers are generic computers or components of a computer used to implement the abstract idea. The image capture device comprising a controller, a memory and software are not used in a meaningful way.
Applicant’s specification discloses an application takes a printscreen or screenshot (also as known as a screen grab or screen capture; paragraph 52). The image capture device is a generic computer device/component used to implement the abstract idea. The judicial exception is not applied by a particular machine.
In addition, the steps of interposing an image capture device between a video output of a controller of said electronic gaming device ana video input of said video display; receiving the video signal; outputting the video signal; transmitting the video signal; receiving the video signal amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recite an image capture device comprising a processor, a memory and software. Applicant’s specification discloses an application in the EGM (gaming machine) to take a “printscreen or screenshot (also as known as a screen grab or screen capture”; paragraph 45). As indicated in Applicant’ specification, screen grab, screen capture, or taking a screenshot is well known. In addition, Russ (US 2017/0085937) discloses that Digital video record with a CPU and executable code is well known in the art (paragraph 41).
The steps of interposing an image capture device between a video output of a controller of said electronic gaming device ana video input of said video display; receiving the video signal; outputting the video signal; transmitting the video signal; receiving the video signal amount transmitting data over a network. The step of transmitting said amount with said associated identifying information to a remote jackpot monitoring system is a step of transmitting data. The courts have ruled that transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional or insignificant extra solution activity. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, identifying, analyzing or extracting data using a computer (monitoring system or server). The step of identifying, analyzing or extracting data as claimed recite an abstract idea. The use of a computer to capturing the image and extracting data is well known in the art. The courts have ruled that electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document is well known, routine and conventional or insignificant extra solution activity. See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
The steps of storing jackpot amount is well known routine and conventional. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea or recited at a high level of generality, is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application for the same reasons discussed above. In addition, these limitations are well known, routine and conventional as discussed above. 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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s specification fails to teach the following claim limitations:
identify, based on timing information of the one or more frames, a most recent frame in the one or more frames and a previous frame captured prior to the most recent frame;
process the most recent frame to determine a current progressive jackpot amount for the electronic gaming device; and
determine, based on the comparison, whether a progressive jackpot associated with the identified electronic gaming device was awarded between when the previous frame was captured and when the most recent frame was captured.
There is no description of identifying based on timing information of the one or more frames, a most recent frame in the one or more frames and a previous frame captured prior to the most recent frame. There is no description that a most recent frame and a previous frame is identified. The specification generally discloses that images are analyzed, and one or more frames are analyzed. However, there is no description of identifying a most recent frame and using the most recent frame to determine whether a progressive jackpot was awarded.
Claims 2, 4-6 are rejected by dependency.
Claims 8, 11-12 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
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 8, 11-12 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 8 recites, “A configured to monitor a progressive jackpot”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed.
Claims 11-12 are rejected by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are incorporated into a practical application and/or recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea in that the claim results in an improvement to a technological field and/or that the claim recites other meaningful limitations beyond linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular environment. For example, any alleged abstract idea is incorporated into a practical application in that claim 1 recites steps to process different frames of a video signal to determine progressive jackpot amounts for the different frames, and then either validate a current progressive jackpot or flag the current progressive jackpot for audit under the claimed conditions. Such steps provide a system for automatically handling the possible outcomes when monitoring progressive jackpots, thus improving the technological field of electronic gaming. As another example, claim 1 recites other meaningful limitations in that, like Diamond V. Diehr, the steps of the claim when considered as a whole sufficiently limit the use of the alleged abstract idea to validating or flagging a progressive jackpot amount.
However, the use of a computer or video signals or video frames or automating a process using a computer generally links the use of the judicial exception to an electronic embodiment. The claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
In addition, the use of a computer to capture images, process image data, and identify images, are well known, routine and conventional. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
35 USC 112
The prior rejections rejected under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn. New rejections under 35 USC 112 have been made to address the amended limitations.
Prior art
The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
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
