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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/12/2026. Presently, claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) A system comprising: a plurality of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs); a processor circuit in communication with the plurality of EGMs via a network; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: provide a graphical user interface (GUI) to an operator processor circuit that is configured to manage a the plurality of EGMs, each EGM configured to provide a player with a subset of games of a plurality of games, managing the plurality of games comprising selecting the subset of games; receive, from the operator processor circuit and via the GUI, an indication of which of the plurality of games are in the subset of games for each EGM; determine data corresponding to a plurality of factors that affect which games are in the subset of games for each EGM; and transmit, to the operator processor circuit and via the GUI, a recommendation for each EGM that is based on the plurality of factors and that comprises a suggested game in the subset of games that are selectable by the player, wherein the plurality of factors comprises a time proximity of an event that is unrelated to when the subset of games is to be played, wherein the event comprises an entertainment event and transmit, to each EGM, an instruction to display, via a GUI of the EGM, the suggested game. The underlined portions above relate to the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental process. That is, they relate to organizing human activity because they are ways to manage gaming events and what opportunities to provide to players. They are mental processes because it is merely analyzing data and then presenting the data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only thing done with the claims is gathering data and presenting it and then is merely having the abstract idea within a technological environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements to the claims, i.e. the non-underlined portions, are all generic computing parts/operations and/or electronic gaming machines. Operating circuits and GUIs are basic computer ideas and the Supreme Court in Alice determined that merely taking an abstract idea and applying generic computing parts is not sufficient to bring the abstract idea into patent eligibility. Electronic gaming machines are conventional and well-known in the art (See, e.g., US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0093136 paragraph 0029).
All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0005472 to Fiorucci in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0287098 to Morrow.
With regard to claim 1, Fiorucci discloses a system comprising: a plurality of Electronic Gaming machines (EGMs) (fig. 1; 0019); a processor circuit in communication with the plurality of EGMs via a network (fig. 1; 0003; 0019); and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that (0003), when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: provide to an operator processor circuit that is configured to manage the plurality of EGMs, each EGM configured to provide a player with a subset of games of a plurality of games, managing the plurality of games comprising selecting the subset of games (0039; 0043-0044); receive, from the operator processor circuit, an indication of which of the plurality of games are in the subset of games for each EGM (0035; 0039; 0042-0044); determine data corresponding to a plurality of factors that affect which games are in the subset of games for each EGM (0042-0044); transmit, to the operator processor circuit, a recommendation for each EGM that is based on the plurality of factors and that comprises a suggested game in the subset of games that are selectable by the player (0042); and transmit to each EGM, an instruction to display via a GUI of the EGM, the suggested game (0039; 0044).
Fiornucci does not appear to explicitly disclose a GUI for an operator. However, Morrow teaches such (0030).
With regard to claim 2¸ Fiornucci discloses that the plurality of factors comprises external factors that are unrelated to the plurality of EGMs (0042).
With regard to claim 3¸ Fiornucci discloses that the external factors comprise data corresponding to when the subset of games is to be played (0042).
With regard to claim 5, Fiornucci discloses wherein the external factors comprise people traffic data corresponding to potential players (0042; wherein occupancy data is accounted for).
With regard to claim 8, Fiornucci discloses that the plurality of factors comprises environmental factors corresponding to an environment of the plurality of EGMs (0042 wherein weather is discussed).
With regard to claim 9, Fiornucci discloses wherein the environmental factors comprise visual factors that are proximate a corresponding one of the plurality of gaming devices (0042 wherein weather/seasons is discussed which would have a visual component).
With regard to claim 10, Fiornucci discloses wherein the plurality of factors comprises game content of the subset of games, wherein a first game of the plurality of games comprises a first game type and a second game of the plurality of games comprises a second type that is different from the first game type, and wherein the first and second game types each comprises one of a video poker game, a keno-style game and a spinning reel game (0035; 0042-0044).
With regard to claim 11, Fiornucci discloses the plurality of factors comprises historical game performance of one of the plurality of games (0039).
With regard to claim 12, Fiornucci discloses that the plurality of factors comprises where ones of the subset of games are licensed games (0025; 0035).
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Fiornucci and Morrow teaches wherein the processor circuit is further caused to received, from the operator processor circuit and via the GUI, player session data that comprises data corresponding to the player experience player on one of the subset of games (Fiornucci at 0042; Morrow at 0030).
With regard to claim 15, Fiornucci discloses response to the data corresponding to the player experience, the operator processor circuit is configured to offer the player a different game than one of the subset of games (0039-0044).
With regard to claim 16, Fiornucci discloses that the processor circuit is further caused to transmit an updated recommendation to the operator processor circuit based on the player session data (0044).
Claim 20 is a mirrored claim to claims 1 and 16 and is rejected in like manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Morrow with the disclosure of Fiornucci so that the operator has the easy ability to see and change items on the gaming floor through the use of a well-known interface such as a graphical user interface as taught by Morrow.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiornucci in view of Morrow as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0268959 to Bryson.
With regard to Claim 6, Fiornucci discloses a variety of characteristics in determining proper game layout, but does not appear to discuss risk/volatility. However, Bryson teaches wherein the plurality of factors comprises an indication corresponding to player risk tolerance relative to game volatility, and wherein, in response to the player indicating a given risk tolerance, the recommendation comprises a game comprising a volatility that corresponds to the given risk tolerance (0053-0059; 0078)
With regard to Claim 7 Bryson teaches wherein, in response to the player indicating the given risk tolerance, the recommendation comprises a first game comprising a first volatility and a second game comprising a second volatility that is different from the first volatility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the characteristics of Bryson with the game floor management of Fiornucci in order to better determine the right volatility characteristic in order to maximize casino profit based upon player risk/volatility considerations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiornucci in view of Morrow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Application Publication No. 2013/0274010 to Acres.
With regard to claim 13, Fiornucci does not appear to explicitly disclose political or economic conditions. However, Acres teaches such (0136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Acres with the disclosure of Fiornucci to provide another characteristic to use in determining how to organize the gaming floor much like the other characteristics that Fiornucci already contemplates in 0042.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiornucci in view of Morrow and Bryson.
With regard to claim 17, Fiornucci and Bryson disclose all of the elements as discussed above and those elements are rejected in like manner. Fiornucci is not explicitly clear about a login process with credentials, however, Bryson teaches such (0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryson with the disclosure of Fiornucci in order to protect the administrator functions to only those that should have access to the system.
Claim 18 contains similar elements as claim 7 and is rejected in like manner.
With regard to claim 19, Fiornucci discloses that the plurality of recommended games comprises a first recommended game comprising a first denomination and a second recommended game comprising a second denomination that is different from the first denomination (0012).
Response to Arguments
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that EGMs are specialized machines which include “specialized hardware” (Arguments, page 8). However, EGMs are notoriously old and well-known with one such example provided above. Merely applying an abstract idea into a technological field is not enough to bring the claims into patent eligibility (See MPEP 2106.05 (A)(iv)). Applicant’s argument that the claims are now incorporated into a practical application is also not found convincing for the same reasoning.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715