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 10/01/2025.
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 11-20 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 an indication of a wager for a draw-style wagering game by a player using a gaming device; receive an indication of a plurality of geographical selections on a geographical image for the draw-style wagering game using the gaming device; cause a display device of the gaming device to display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising: the geographical image comprising a plurality of geographical image zones; the plurality of geographical selections on the geographical image; cause the display device to display a plurality of drawn geographical image zones corresponding to the geographical image; for each drawn geographical image zone, determine whether the drawn geographical image zone corresponds to any of the plurality of geographical selections on the geographical image; for each drawn geographical image zone that corresponds to one of the plurality of geographical selections, determine that the drawn geographical image zone is a hit and display a hit indicator at the one of the plurality of 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 a player of the draw-style wagering game, wherein ones of the plurality of geographical selections comprise an irregular shape that is input by the player.” 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. 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.
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)”, 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]. 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13 & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oakes et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0214570)
Claim 1, 19, 20: Oakes teaches a system (402) including a processor circuit (inherent in digital computers) and a memory (404) storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to receive an indication of a wager (Fig 1, 108) for a draw-style wagering game by a player using a gaming device (408). Oakes receives an indication of a plurality of geographical selections on a geographical image (Fig 6) for the draw-style wagering game using the gaming device (408). Oakes causes a display device of the gaming device to display a graphical user interface (GUI) including the geographical image. (Abstract) The image includes a plurality of geographical image zones (604). The plurality of geographical selections are displayed on the geographical image. (Fig 6, 604) Oakes causes the display device to display a plurality of drawn geographical image zones corresponding to the geographical image. (Fig 7A shows displaying the drawn zone – i.e., the winner.) For each drawn geographical image zone, determine whether the drawn geographical image zone corresponds to any of the plurality of geographical selections on the geographical image; for each drawn geographical image zone that corresponds to one of the plurality of geographical selections. (¶ 0067) Oakes determine that the drawn geographical image zone is a hit and display a hit indicator at the one of the plurality of geographical selections corresponding to the drawn geographical image zone. (Fig 7A) Based on a number of hits, Oakes generates a game result for the draw-style wagering game; and in response to the game result being a winning game result, provides an award to a player of the draw-style wagering game. (Fig 1, 116)
The game is essentially a gridless keno-style game,
wherein ones of the plurality of geographical selections comprise an irregular shape that is input by the player (Fig 10 shows that the selections may be counties in Texas. These counties have irregular shapes. Abstract describes a player making the selection of a geographic region which would be a form of input.).
Claim 2: The geographical image comprises a map image corresponding to a real and/or fictitious geographical location (i.e., Texas) that is configured to receive one of the plurality of geographical selections from the player as a location on the map image. (Fig 6)
Claim 3: The plurality of geographical selections may include a plurality of user selectable shapes and/or shape sizes, and wherein a wager amount is determined based on a selected shape and/or shape size. (¶ 0081)
Claim 4: Oakes discloses auctions for selected parcels. (¶ 0069) Thus, the wager amount corresponding to a selected first shape size may be greater than the wager amount corresponding to a selected second size that is larger than the first selected shape size depending on the auction results.
Claim 5: Oakes discloses that some of the plurality of geographical selections are associated may be a commercial brand comprising a specific location on the geographical image. (¶ 0085)
Claim 6: Generating the game result includes determining an overlapping portion between the drawn geographical image and corresponding ones of the plurality of geographic selections. The selected area must match the drawn area in order to win.
Claim 7: Generating the game result includes determining the one of the plurality of geographic selections that is most proximal to one of the drawn geographical image zones. Fig 9 shows basing prizes on proximity to the selected geographical area,
Claim 8: As shown in Fig 9, the winning plurality of geographical selections are defined as a center point (i.e., the 1st prize location) and a radius (2nd and 3rd prizes are determined based on distance from the 1st prize area).
Claim 9: The radius includes a first radius that corresponds to a first portion of the geographical image (i.e., the 3rd prize area) and a second radius that corresponds to a second portion of the geographical image (the 2nd prize area). The second portion is different from the first portion of the geographical image. (Fig 9 shows distinct 2nd and 3rd prize areas.) The second radius is different from the first radius based on a difference between the first and second portions of the geographical image. (The 2nd prize area is closer to the center than the 3rd prize area.)
Claim 11: The wager amount corresponding to the irregular shape may be calculated based on an area feature therein and a size of the irregular shape on the geographical image. (¶ 0081)
Claim 12: The player includes a first player corresponding to a first one of the plurality of geographical selections and a second player corresponding to a second one of the plurality of geographical selections, wherein the award comprises a first award amount and a second award amount that is different from the first award amount, wherein the first award amount corresponds to the first one of the plurality of geographical selections being a first distance from one of the plurality of drawn geographical image zones, wherein the second award amount corresponds to the second one of the plurality of geographical selections being a second distance from one of the plurality of drawn geographical image zones, wherein the first distance is different from the second distance. Fig 9 shows that prizes for different players may vary based on distance from the drawn location.
Claim 13: Responsive to the second distance being greater than the first distance, the first award amount is greater than the second award amount. The 1st prize is higher than the 2nd prize, which is higher than the 3rd prize. See Fig 9.
Claim 17: Receiving the indication of a plurality of geographical selections includes receiving a location value of a point on the geographical image and modifying an initial shape around the point to be a different shape and/or shape size. The initial shape may be a single part of the grid, but the prize area is modified to include more area. (Fig 9) This is receiving a location value of a point on the geographical image and modifying an initial shape around the point to be a different shape and/or shape size.
Claim 18: A first one of the plurality of geographic image zones corresponds to a first award amount and a second one of the plurality of geographic image zones corresponds to a second award amount that is different from the first award amount based on the first and second ones of the geographic image zones being at different locations on the geographic image. (See Fig 9)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karra (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0187164).
Claim 14: Oakes teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including that the geographical image with the plurality of geographical image zones may include a brand identifier symbol. (¶ 0085 teaches business placing their names on the map. This is a brand identifier symbol.) Oakes does not explicitly teach that responsive to one of the plurality of geographical selections being proximate the brand identifier symbol, providing a portion of the award from an entity corresponding to the brand identifier symbol. Karra teaches that 3rd party businesses may sponsor a lotter (as outlined by Oakes) and at least part of the money for the prizes is supplied by the sponsoring businesses. (¶ 0065) This increases the profits of the lottery managers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (or of initial filing) to have modified Oakes in view of Karra such that responsive to one of the plurality of geographical selections being proximate the brand identifier symbol, providing a portion of the award from an entity corresponding to the brand identifier symbol in order to increase lottery profits.
Claim(s) 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowles et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0279408)
Claim 15: Oakes teaches that the maps may include identifiers of local organizations. (¶ 0085) Oakes fails to teach that the identifier is a charity symbol, wherein responsive to one of the plurality of geographical selections being proximate the charity symbol, providing a portion of the award to a charity that is associated with the charity symbol. Bowles teaches using a lottery to designate a charity to receive money raised by the lottery. (¶ 0068) This consolidates all donations into a single pot, thus making a greater impact for the selected charity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (or of initial filing) to have modified Oakes in view of Bowles such that the identifier is a charity symbol, wherein responsive to one of the plurality of geographical selections being proximate the charity symbol, providing a portion of the award to a charity that is associated with the charity symbol in order to consolidate all donations into a single pot, thus making a greater impact for the selected charity.
Claim 16: The “charity symbol” (of Claim 15) is essentially a location pin that comprises an interest symbol that corresponds to an organization that is unrelated to the draw-style wagering game. As noted in the discussion of Claim 15, it would have been obvious that responsive to receiving the award corresponding to that interest symbol, to award a portion of the award to the (charitable) organization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 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 argues against the previous 101 rejection. For clarity examiner has rewritten the 101 rejection to better include the steps associated with a 101 analysis and therefore this action will be non-final.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., pools for wagering, risk management, and recommendations for games) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues the use of pools for the purpose of wagering overcomes the 101 rejection. Examiner has reviewed the claims and does not find the language. Applicant should specifically include this feature if they believe this overcomes the previous rejection. However examiner also notes that determining which pool a wager goes into would fall under a mental step directed towards game rules and not computer hardware. Specifically this is an account step or a game function rule step depending on how the proposed feature is claimed. Additionally applicant makes an argument regarding a GUI recommending games. It is unclear where this feature is present in the claims. Claim 6 additionally appears to have different language then what is argued by applicant. Examiner does not find risk management in the claims.
Applicant makes an argument to overcome the 101 rejection regarding the use of computer features such as processors, memory, and a GUI for displaying the game. 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. Therefore the inclusion of conventional computer features does not overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding innovative arguments “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Applicant should indicate a practical application beyond innovative since the elements relied upon are directed to either the exceptions or performing the exceptions on conventional computer hardware.
Applicant argues that claimed features overcome the previous 102 rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees as at least Fig. 10, paragraphs 69, 81 and abstract disclose said limitations. Specifically, a player makes a selection, or input, in the game for a geographic region on the GUI for the purpose of play (see abstract and paragraph 69). Fig. 10 shows regions which are irregular in shape. Additionally, see paragraph [0081] which notes that the regions have different shapes and sizes. Therefore, it is the office position that the prior art of Oakes et al meet the claim limitations, as put forth in the current and previous office action.
Conclusion
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 1/15/2026