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 Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated July 30, 2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated May 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 15-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 20 is directed to an extended (“XR”) device (i.e., a machine). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a central controller for an extended reality ("XR") device configured to manage assignment of a virtual element associated with a virtual gaming environment displayed by the XR device, the central controller comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the central controller to perform operations comprising:
controlling a display device of the XR device to display the virtual gaming environment based on a three-dimensional wireframe map of a casino floor;
determining that the virtual element is assigned to a first entity;
determining that the virtual element has changed possession within the virtual gaming environment;
responsive to determining that the virtual element has changed possession within the virtual gaming environment, determining whether to change the assignment of the virtual element; and
controlling the display device of the XR device to display the virtual element in the virtual gaming environment based on the assignment of the virtual element.
The present claims are directed to managing assignment of a virtual element associated with a virtual gaming environment. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices or principles because it involves the transfer of items having value. Additionally, it falls in the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it involves interactions between a first entity and a second entity involving the assignment and possession of a virtual element. The steps also fall in the category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the transfer of the virtual element takes place during the course of gameplay. Finally, the determining steps and displaying information are all steps that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, the claims also fall into the category of mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a central controller, an extended reality (“XR”) device, a processor circuit, a memory, a display device, a device, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and processing circuitry. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the present claims are well-known, routine, or convention as shown:
a central controller, a processor circuit, a memory, processing circuitry, a non-transitory computer readable medium (Vagner, US 2015/0302482 A1, a general computer can include a memory, a processor, input/out components, and other components that are common for general computers, all of which are well known in the art [0099]), (Yoseloff et al., US 2007/0298854 A1, a main game controller motherboard may include a central microprocessor and related components well-known in the industry as computers using Intel brand Pentium.RTM. microprocessors and related memory or intelligence from any other manufacturing source [0091]) and
an extended reality (“XR”) device, a device (Collins, US 2008/0125218 A1, virtual reality devices or mechanisms are well known in the art [0004]);
a display device (Tedesco et al., US 2008/0248865 A1, for gaming devices, common output devices include a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor on a video poker machine, a bell on a gaming device (e.g., rings when a player wins), an LED display of a player's credit balance on a gaming device, an LCD display of a personal digital assistant (PDA) for displaying keno numbers [0120]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant states:
Accordingly, the 2019 Guidance revises the USPTO's examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) by: (1) providing groupings of subject matter that is considered an abstract idea; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Based on this new guidance, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's claims are not directed to "abstract ideas" such as mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, laws of nature or natural phenomena. Therefore, since Applicant's claims do not recite matter that falls within the enumerating groupings of abstract ideas, Applicant's claims should not be treated as reciting an abstract idea. (Response [p. 11])
Applicant does not address the analysis in the prior action or explain why the identified limitations fall outside the grouping. A general allegation of eligibility, without specifically pointing out how the claim language distinguishes over the identified exception is not persuasive. As stated above, the claim recites transferring items having value between a first entity and a second entity during gameplay. The limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity (under the sub-category of fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and mental processes.
With respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant states that the newly amended claim language (“controlling a display device of the XR device to display the virtual gaming environment based on a three-dimensional wireframe map of a casino floor”) provides the benefit of reducing the processing requirements of extended reality (XR) devices, including virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) devices, by providing a three-dimensional wireframe map (Response [p. 12]). Applicant quotes language from the specification that is intended to provide support that the claims disclose an improvement:
[0046] The VR/AR controller 114 may store a three-dimensional wireframe map of a gaming area, such as a casino floor, and may provide the three-dimensional wireframe map to the VR/AR devices 200. The wireframe map may store various information about EGMs in the gaming area, such as the identity, type and location of various types of EGMs. The three dimensional wireframe map may enable a VR/AR device 200 to more quickly and accurately determine its position and/or orientation within the gaming area, and also may enable the VR/AR device 200 to assist the player in navigating the gaming area while using the VR/AR device 200. The generation of three-dimensional wireframe maps is described in more detail below.
[0047] In some embodiments, at least some processing of virtual images and/or objects that are rendered by the VR devices 200 may be performed by the VR/AR controller 114, thereby offloading at least some processing requirements from the VR devices 200. (Response [p. 12])
Applicant alleges that this solves a unique technical problem within the field of XR devices which arises due to the hardware limitations, including processing limitations, of XR devices imposed by the requirements of XR devices being lightweight and portable (Response [p. 12]). “Without the benefit of Applicant's claimed invention utilizing novel and unconventional devices and techniques, generating and displaying virtual areas to players of XR devices takes longer, taxes the hardware and battery of XR devices and delays the presentation and use of XR spaces” (Response [p. 12]).
First, the claims merely recite displaying a display of the virtual gaming environment based on a three-dimensional wireframe map. There is no mention of position or orientation determination or navigation. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in the claims that some processing requirements are offloaded from the VR devices.
Second, the specification does not state that the wireframe map reduces processing requirements. It states that the map aids localization.
Third, the alleged technical benefits described in the specification are not supported by language in the claims.
Applicant also states that the claimed invention provides technical benefits over existing systems within the field of XR devices (Response [p. 13]).
The Examiner disagrees.
According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1):
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
In the present instance, the asserted improvements are not recited in the claims. The examiner has considered the limitations individually and as a whole and has not evaluated them at a high level of generality.
The examiner maintains that the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights