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 .
Response to Amendments
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 04/20/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0024] see “Error! Reference source not found.”. It is unclear what applicant intends by this. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to method of organizing human activity directed to a fundamental economic activity such as hedging (e.g. carrying out a wagering game) in order to determine a financial obligation without significantly more and can be carried out as a mental process since the claims are directed merely to rules on how to carry out the game based on information provided without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards systems and gaming devices or methods using gaming devices to perform the steps of the claims and therefore step 1 is met. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “receive a first electronic communication comprising an indication of a wager for a draw-style wagering game by a player using a gaming device; receive a second electronic communication comprising an indication of a plurality of first geographical selections on a first representation of a geographical image displayed on a display device of the gaming device; receive, over a remote link of a communication network, a third electronic communication comprising an indication of a plurality of second geographical selections on a second representation of the geographical image displayed on at least one other gaming device; cause the display device of the gaming device to display the first representation of the geographical image showing the plurality of first geographical selections and the plurality of second geographical selections, wherein one of the plurality of first geographical selections is displayed with an initial shape; receive a fourth electronic communication comprising an indication that the player has altered the initial shape’s scale; cause the display device to display the initial shape with the altered scale and an update to an amount of the wager that is based on the altered scale; cause the display device to display a plurality of drawn geographical image zones corresponding to the first representation of the geographical image; for each drawn geographical image zone, determine whether the drawn geographical image zone corresponds to any of the plurality of first geographical selections on the first representation of the geographical image; for each drawn geographical image zone that corresponds to one of the plurality of first geographical selections, determine that the drawn geographical image zone is a hit cause the display device to and display a hit indicator at the one of the plurality of first geographical selections corresponding to the drawn geographical image zone; based on a number of hits, generate a game result for the draw-style wagering game; and in response to the game result being a winning game result, provide an award to the player of the draw-style wagering game.” as being directed to a draw-style wagering game wherein players select and wager on a geographic selection of a geographic image, such as a map, and a determination is made if the selection is a winning selection in order to provide an award. Amended language includes making the game multiplayer and allowing for user’s to scale a geographic shape for selecting a wager with examiner looking to paragraph [0025] regarding how scale is used in applicant’s disclosure. Specifically examiner reads this as the player placing a shape to select what area to wager upon and can customize the scale, such as changing size, of the shape. Further dependent claims clarify the geographic image, multiplayer functions, and wagering options. As per the hedging function examiner recognizes that applicant includes wagering language such as wagering and awards to be provided based on wagering. This would read on an action of hedging wherein a risk is taken in order to win a prize from a gaming operator. Additionally this is a financial obligation which is owed from a player to a gaming operator and from an operator to a player. See bolded language. As per the mental step examiner recognizes the claims include a series of steps that can be performed in the mind in the form of game rules. Specifically the steps of observing a state of the game and applying a corresponding rule. In this particular case the game rules comprising determining a player’s selection in the lottery game and then determining if the selection is a winner. This is a standard format for lottery games which pre-exist the use of computers. The use of geographic selections for the game is a theme of the game and goes towards additional flavor rules but are ones that can be performed in the mind.
As can readily be seen, the claimed invention can be performed by humans without the aid of computers. For purposes of discussion, we will use Fig 6 from Oakes et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0214570) as a visual aid:
PNG
media_image1.png
618
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Imagine a betting shop where a man has a picture of Texas similar to that which is depicted above hanging on the wall. Each of the areas (604) on the map has been assigned a different number. He invites the patrons to choose a numbered area as a lottery entry and issues tickets to memorialize those wagers. When the time for the lottery draw arrives, he reaches into a hat and pulls out a number that corresponds to one of the areas on the map. He pays the patron who has the winning ticket. This reads on the conventional and old method of how a lottery is performed. Additionally the amended feature of customizable shapes for selecting wagers is the rule of how the wager is indicated. This would read on a mental step as an individual can perform the action in a game of drawing an area around what they wish to wager upon with the area based on user’s preference. For example in the game of roulette a player can choose to wager on a specific number or can make wagers that include multiple numbers which would be equivalent of setting the shape of a wager. For example a square comprising one number, a rectangle comprising two, and a larger square comprising four would be examples of different sized shapes for a wager with the act of how it is displayed being directed towards a theme. Therefore this would be a mental step comprising a game rule.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims amount to no more than applying the judicial exception, the playing of a game, to a gaming device and does not include practical application beyond the playing of the game. No improvement to the computing art is indicated such as improving the function of the hardware nor do the claims appear to add more than the playing of a game. The action of encouraging the playing of a game or gaining revenue from the playing of a game is a well-known and recognized motivation and therefore does not provide a practical application in of itself. Specifically it is the intention of every game to encourage play since a game designer wishes for players to play their game. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it remains directed towards judicial exceptions regarding hedging in the form of a wagering game and game rules which can be performed in the mind. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitation “system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to”, “cause a display device of the gaming device to display a graphical user interface (GUI)”, network features comprising more than one gamine device, and other animation and hardware elements. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are convention activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Nordby (US Pub. No. 2021/0375089 A1) "Lottery winners in such conventional lotteries are eventually chosen by a lottery administrator which—via one or more conventional methods—draws or randomly selects winning numbers which an entrant must have selected, and thereby have a paper ticket with numbers matching the winning numbers, to win the lottery prize." paragraph [0003]. Moon et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0232641 A1) teaches the conventional use of internet lotteries (paragraph [0005]) wherein player's select desired numbers on a website. Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated reels or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. It is conventional to carry out a lottery game over a network for a plurality of devices such as an internet based lottery game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application since the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. The act of animating outcomes or results in a game is drawn towards conventional activities with the actual animation used being extra solution activity and in this case does not represent a practical application or a non-conventional machine but instead directed towards visual designs on how the game is played. Specifically the elements recited appear to run on a conventional gaming machine and appear to be solely directed towards a theme of a game using the game’s rules without an improvement to the technology beyond those known related to gaming such as entertainment which has not been found to overcome step 2A or 2B. The use of a particular image to communicate a lottery number pick is a theme and not an element under step 2B that would overcome the 101 rejection. Specifically using different images is not a practical improvement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the previous 101 rejection as being improper. Examiner will address applicant’s points in order.
Applicant makes an argument to overcome the 101 rejection regarding the use of computer features such as a network. Examiner however indicates these features are conventional to the art with a personal computer performing the steps of a game and displaying the game as being known in the art. The use of the internet to perform a lottery game is conventional to the art. The act of accepting inputs from different players that differ is the standard method of carrying out a wager over the internet of a particular number for an internet lottery game which is conventional. See above Moon. Therefore the inclusion of conventional computer features does not overcome the 101 rejection.
As per the amended features regarding the scaling of shapes for wager selection and different representations this goes towards the act of customizing a wager which is a mental step directed towards the rules of a game. See above. For example in the game of roulette a player can choose to wager on a specific number or can make wagers that include multiple numbers which would be equivalent of setting the shape of a wager. For example a square comprising one number, a rectangle comprising two, and a larger square comprising four would be examples of different sized shapes for a wager with the act of how it is displayed being directed towards a theme. Therefore this would be a mental step comprising a game rule.
As per the previous 102 examiner recognizes the art is silent on the amended feature of scaling of wager selection when combined with the other features in the claim and that this is a non-obvious combination. Therefore the 102 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights