DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 1/28/2026 has been received and fully considered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Determining a ranking associated with one or more players based on information associated with gameplay by the player, including a combined score of two or more players (e.g., claims 1-5)
determining the type of metrics used to determine a ranking (e.g., claim 8, 9, 16)
determining that a player has earned a gameplay opportunity (e.g., see claims 10 and 18)
determining a prize based on the ranking (e.g., see claim 11)
determining/transmitting score milestones (e.g., see claims 12 and 20)
determining rankings based on a normalized ranking, including an amount won per an amount wagered (e.g., claims 1 and 13)
determining information associated with gameplay of an existing game on an EGM without modifying the existing game (e.g., claims 15 and 17)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
In this case, the abstract ideas are based on rules for managing a secondary tournament game that could be implemented by a mental process. Further, the abstract ideas are also following a set of rules or instructions.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Transmit a game start and final ranking (claims 1 and 19, insignificant extra-solution activity);
receiving gameplay information for a one or more players (claims 1, 2, insignificant extra-solution activity);
presenting, by a display, an indication of the ranking of the player (1, 15, and 21, insignificant extra-solution activity);
the first and second games are different types of games (claims 6, 7, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-13 and 15-21, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display, receive (gather), transmit, and notify in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claims 1 and 15 (e.g., a processor, memory, GUI, display, game controller) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 101.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination requirement, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0009278 to Vancura is cited for disclosing a computer system (801) that includes a processor (800), memory (not numbered), RNG (810), and output/display device (830) are conventional in the gaming art (e.g., see at least paragraph 94). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0203524 to Wong is cited for disclosing that a graphical user interface/display (110) is conventional in the gaming art (e.g., see at least paragraph 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0199878 to Wright.
With regard to claim 1, Gauselmann discloses a game controller for an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”)(e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19) configured to rank gameplay, the game controller comprising:
a processor circuit (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19 for discussion of a processor/CPU); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19 for discussion of memory), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the EGM to perform operations comprising:
transmitting an indication of a start of an event to the EGM (e.g., see at least paragraphs 30-32 that discusses the start of a tournament);
determining a ranking associated with the player based on the information associated with the gameplay by the player (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 59, “Calculate amounts and rankings”; see also paragraph 44 for discussion of ranking calculations); and
controlling a graphical user interface (“GUI”) to present, by a display device, an indication of the ranking of the player (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 60, “Send amounts and rankings” and step 61 “Display amounts and rankings”; see also paragraphs 44 for discussion of transmission of rankings”);
wherein determining the ranking associated with the player based on the information associated with the gameplay by the player comprises: determining a score based on dividing the amount won by the amount wagered per wager (e.g., see at least paragraph 15 that discusses “Criteria for winning may be…the highest payout/pay-in ratio”, which is equivalent to a score based on dividing amount won by the amount wagered per wager); and
determining the ranking based on the score (e.g., see at least paragraph 15 that discusses “Criteria for winning may be…the highest payout/pay-in ratio”, which is equivalent to a score based on dividing amount won by the amount wagered per wager);
[claim 2] wherein the player is a first player (e.g., see at least paragraphs 6, 32 and 42 that discuss multiple players), wherein the gameplay comprises a first gameplay, the operations further comprising: receiving information associated with second gameplay by a second player (e.g., see at least paragraphs 6, 32 and 42 that discuss multiple players), wherein determining the ranking associated with the player comprises determining the ranking associated with the first player based on the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player and based on the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step “Calculate amounts and rankings”);
[claim 4] the operations further comprising: determining a ranking associated with the second player relative to the first player based on a comparison of the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player and the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player, wherein controlling the GUI comprises transmitting an indication of the ranking of the first player and/or the ranking of the second player to the GUI (e.g., see at least paragraphs 6, 32 and 42 that discuss multiple players ; see also at least Fig. 4, step “Calculate amounts and rankings”);
[claim 5] wherein receiving the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player comprises receiving the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player from a first electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), and wherein receiving the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player comprises receiving the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player from a second EGM that is different from the first EGM (e.g., see at least paragraph 8, that discusses that the rankings can apply to “a variety of types of gaming machines by different manufacturers”; see also paragraph 21, “[i]nterfaces to the different types of gaming machines”; see also paragraph 30 for a discussion of different types of games that may be played);
[claim 6] wherein the first gameplay by the first player is associated with a first game, and wherein the second gameplay by the second player is associated with a second game that is different than the first game (e.g., see at least paragraph 8, that discusses that the rankings can apply to “a variety of types of gaming machines by different manufacturers”; see also paragraph 21, “[i]nterfaces to the different types of gaming machines”; see also paragraph 30 for a discussion of different types of games that may be played);
[claim 7] wherein the first gameplay by the first player is associated with a first type of game, wherein the second gameplay by the second player is associated with a second type of game that is different than the first type of game, and wherein the first type of game or the second type of game comprises at least one of: a slot machine; a table game; and a lottery game (e.g., see at least paragraph 8, that discusses that the rankings can apply to “a variety of types of gaming machines by different manufacturers”; see also paragraph 21, “[i]nterfaces to the different types of gaming machines”; see also paragraph 30 for a discussion of different types of games that may be played);
[claim 8] wherein the first gameplay and the second gameplay are both associated with at least one of: a predetermined number of spins; a time window of a predetermined length (e.g., see at least paragraph 31 for “start and end times”); and a predetermined wager amount, and wherein the first gameplay and the second gameplay are asynchronous;
[claim 9] wherein the information associated with the gameplay by the player comprises at least one of: an indication of an amount wagered (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most money wagered”); an indication of an amount won (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most money won”); an indication of a number of games played (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most plays”); an indication of a number of games won in a row; an indication of a number of games lost in a row; an indication of a score earned by the gameplay; an indication of an identity of the player; and an indication of a tier status of the player; and
[claim 11] the operations further comprising: determining that the event has ended (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 62, “Time elapsed?”; see also paragraph 45 that discussed the end of the event); subsequent to determining that the event has ended, determining a prize based on the ranking associated with the player; and providing the prize to the player (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 63, “Send final ranking an prize won”; see also paragraph 6, “winning player is award a prize”; see also paragraph 36 for discussion of awarding a prize; see also paragraph 46).
With regard to claim 1, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited elements but is silent regarding subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from the EGM, the information including an amount won and an amount wagered.
In the same field of endeavor, Wright teaches subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from the EGM, the information including an amount won and an amount wagered (e.g., see at least paragraph 78 that states “It will be understood that other tournament participation criteria are equally applicable, including, for example, criteria that take into consideration, wager amounts, won funds, number of plays, etc. within the predefined period leading up to commencement of the enrolment period”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the criteria for tournament participation as taught by Wright in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, providing tournament participation criteria limits the number of players, which will encourage additional gameplay during pre-tournament gameplay to qualify for potentially lucrative tournament gameplay.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Wright as recited in claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0116809 to Carpenter.
With regard to claim 3, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding determining a combined score based on the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player and based on the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player; and determining the ranking associated with the first player based on the combined score.
In the same field of endeavor, Carpenter teaches regarding determining a combined score based on the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player and based on the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player; and determining the ranking associated with the first player based on the combined score (e.g., see at least paragraph 60 that discusses a team scoring that individual players score in accumulated into a total).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the combined scoring as taught by Carpenter in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, allowing players to be in a team environment with a combined score increases the enjoyment for players that prefer social gaming.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Wright as recited in claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0065669 to Michaelson.
With regard to claim 10, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding determining that the player has earned a gameplay opportunity based on an action by the player; and transmitting an indication that the player has earned the gameplay opportunity, wherein the gameplay opportunity comprises at least one of: an amount of time in which to play a qualifying game; and a number of spins to use to play the qualifying game.
In the same field of endeavor, Michaelson teaches determining that the player has earned a gameplay opportunity based on an action by the player; and transmitting an indication that the player has earned the gameplay opportunity, wherein the gameplay opportunity comprises at least one of: an amount of time in which to play a qualifying game; and a number of spins to use to play the qualifying game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 65 and 89 that discuss triggering secondary game opportunities based on “amount of time” played).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the time-based triggers as taught by Michaleson in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, the use of time-based triggers encourages player to spend more time playing the game, which will increase operator revenue in the long run.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Wright as recited in claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0261555 to Shah.
With regard to claim 12, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding transmitting an indication of score milestones associated with the ranking of the player to an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") configured to provide gameplay opportunities.
In the same field of endeavor, Shah teaches transmitting an indication of score milestones associated with the ranking of the player to an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") configured to provide gameplay opportunities (e.g., see at least paragraph 38 that discusses transmitting score milestones).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the transmitting score milestones as taught by Shah in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, transmitting score milestones allow the system to identify predetermine triggers for game event that simplifies the game rules for the player and the operator.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Wright as recited in claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0043043 to Burns.
With regard to claim 13, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding determining the ranking associated with the player based on the information associated with the gameplay by the player comprises determining a normalized ranking.
In the same field of endeavor, Burns teaches determining the ranking associated with the player based on the information associated with the gameplay by the player comprises determining a normalized ranking (e.g., see at least paragraph 169 that discusses normalizing player scores).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the normalizing scoring as taught by Burns in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, normalizing scores allows players to participate in different games or wagering environments to permit a fairer contest.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0362679 to Meckel.
With regard to claim 15, Gauselmann discloses an electronic gaming machine ("EGM")(e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19) configured to provide a tournament on top of an existing game (e.g., see at least paragraph 8, “the gaming machines do not need to be reconfigured for participating in the tournament”), the EGM comprising:
a display device (e.g., see screen/display 34 in Fig. 2; see also discussion of video screen 34 in paragraph 30);
a game controller comprising a processor circuit (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19 for discussion of a processor/CPU); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18 and 19 for discussion of memory), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the EGM to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with gameplay of the existing game on the EGM by a player (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 58 “Query GM meters”; see also paragraph 43 for discussion of gameplay information submission); an indication of a number of games won in a row; an indication of a number of games lost in a row; an indication of a score earned by the gameplay; an indication of an identity of the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 13 for discussion of identifying a player); and an indication of a tier status of the player,
transmitting the information associated with the gameplay on the EGM by the player to a tournament controller (e.g., see at least Fig. 4, step 60 “Send amount and rankings”; see also paragraph 44 for discussion of gameplay information transmission); and
receiving an indication of a ranking of the player from the tournament controller (e.g., see Fig. 4, step 61, “Display amounts and rankings”; see also paragraph 44 for displaying the rankings)
wherein the gameplay on the EGM by the player is limited to at least one of:
a predetermined number of games played (e.g., see at least paragraph 43 for discussion of monitoring the number of games played); and
a predetermined amount wagered.
[claim 16] the operations further comprising: determining that the player intends for the gameplay to be used as an entry into the tournament (e.g., see at least paragraph 32 for discussion of player starting the tournament), wherein determining the information associated with the gameplay on the EGM by the player comprises determining at least one of: an indication of an amount wagered (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most money wagered”); an indication of an amount won (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most money won”); an indication of a number of games played (e.g., see at least paragraph 15, “most plays”).
[claim 17] wherein determining the information associated with the gameplay on the EGM by the player comprises determining the information associated with play of the existing game on the EGM without modifying the existing game (e.g., see at least paragraph 8, “the gaming machines do not need to be reconfigured for participating in the tournament”); and
[claim 19] the operations further comprising: providing, to the player, an indication of at least one of: an amount of time before the tournament starts; an amount of time before the tournament ends; and an amount of time before a gameplay session ends (e.g., see at least paragraph 31 for “start and end times”).
With regard to claim 15, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited elements but is silent regarding the specific game information in the existing game. The current claims remove recited features that were disclosed by Gauselmann (i.e., identity of the player).
In the same field of endeavor, Meckel teaches a streaker matcher that matches players future competitions based on number of games won or lost (e.g., see at least paragraph 38 that discusses matching based on games won/lost).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the game won/lost competition matching data as taught by Meckel in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Meckel as recited in claim 15 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0065669 to Michaelson.
With regard to claim 18, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding determining that the player has earned a gameplay opportunity based on an action by the player; and transmitting an indication that the player has earned the gameplay opportunity, wherein the gameplay opportunity comprises at least one of: an amount of time in which to play a qualifying game; and a number of spins to use to play the qualifying game.
In the same field of endeavor, Michaelson teaches determining that the player has earned a gameplay opportunity based on an action by the player; and transmitting an indication that the player has earned the gameplay opportunity, wherein the gameplay opportunity comprises at least one of: an amount of time in which to play a qualifying game; and a number of spins to use to play the qualifying game (e.g., see at least paragraphs 65 and 89 that discuss triggering secondary game opportunities based on “amount of time” played).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the time-based triggers as taught by Michaleson in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, the use of time-based triggers encourages player to spend more time playing the game, which will increase operator revenue in the long run.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauselmann in view of Meckel as recited in claim 15 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0261555 to Shah.
With regard to claim 20, Gauselmann discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding transmitting an indication of score milestones associated with the ranking of the player to an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") configured to provide gameplay opportunities.
In the same field of endeavor, Shah teaches transmitting an indication of score milestones associated with the ranking of the player to an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") configured to provide gameplay opportunities (e.g., see at least paragraph 38 that discusses transmitting score milestones).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Gauselmann with the transmitting score milestones as taught by Shah in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, transmitting score milestones allow the system to identify predetermine triggers for game event that simplifies the game rules for the player and the operator.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0110666 to Thomas in view of Wright.
With regard to claim 21, Thomas discloses computer readable non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuitry of a system configured to rank gameplay (e.g., see at least paragraphs 81 and 88) to cause the system to perform operations comprising: transmitting an indication of a start of an event (e.g., see at least paragraph 96 for discussion of tournament start date/time) to an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with first gameplay by a first player from the EGM (e.g., see at least paragraph 81 for discussion of player scoring data for ranking); subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with second gameplay by a second player (e.g., see at least paragraph 36 for discussion of multiple players playing in a tournament), the first gameplay and the second gameplay being asynchronous (e.g., see at least paragraphs 80-90 for discussion of asynchronous play); determining a ranking associated with the first player based on the information associated with the first gameplay by the first player and based on the information associated with the second gameplay by the second player (e.g., see at least paragraph 81 for discussion of player rankings); and transmitting an indication of the ranking associated with the player (e.g., see at least paragraph 173 for discussion of a leaderboard that includes player rankings).
With regard to claim 21, Thomas discloses all of the recited elements but is silent regarding subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from the EGM, the information including an amount won and an amount wagered.
In the same field of endeavor, Wright teaches subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from the EGM, the information including an amount won and an amount wagered (e.g., see at least paragraph 78 that states “It will be understood that other tournament participation criteria are equally applicable, including, for example, criteria that take into consideration, wager amounts, won funds, number of plays, etc. within the predefined period leading up to commencement of the enrolment period”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Thomas with the criteria for tournament participation as taught by Wright in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, providing tournament participation criteria limits the number of players, which will encourage additional gameplay during pre-tournament gameplay to qualify for potentially lucrative tournament gameplay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, penultimate paragraph, Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to cite to any portion of Wright. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 9 of the previous Office Action, the Examiner cited paragraph 78 of Wright (the same citation is repeated in this Office Action).
On page 10, last paragraph (continued on page 11), Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to cite to any portion of Gauselmann and Wright to teach or suggest that the “receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from an EGM, the information including an amount won and amount wagered per wager”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 6 of the previous Office Action, the Examines cited paragraph 15 of Gauselmann for disclosing “Criteria for winning may be…the highest payout/pay-in ratio”. In order to determine a ratio of payout to pay-in, the system will need to receive both payout and the amount wagered. In the situation where the user only makes a single wager, then the pay-in is the same as the amount wagered per wager. For at least these reasons the rejection is maintained.
On page 12, first full paragraph, Applicant argues that the combination of Gauselmann and Meckel fails to teach or suggest that the “information comprises at least on of: an indication of a number of games won in a row; an indication of a number of games lost in a row; and an indication of a tier status of the player.” In the next paragraph of page 12, Applicant continues by stating “the Office Action fails to provide a citation to any portion of Meckel. For at least this reason, Claim 15 is patentable over Gauselmann.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 15 of the previous Office Action the Examiner cited paragraph 38 of Meckel (the same citation is repeated in this Office Action).
On page 12, third full paragraph (continued on page 13), Applicant argues that the combination of Gauselmann and Meckel fails to teach or suggest that the “gameplay on the EGM by the player is limited to at least one of: a predetermined number of games played; and a predetermined amount wagered”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It’s the Examiner’s position that every ranked player must play at least one game. Therefore, when generating a ranking/leaderboard, Gauselmann’s players will necessarily need to play at least one game in order to be scored/ranked. That is, gameplay is limited to players that have played at least one game. For at least this reason, Gauselmann discloses the recited claim feature.
On page 13, final paragraph (continued on page 14), Applicant argues that Wright fails to teach or suggest that “the information associated with the first gameplay including an amount won by the first player and an indication of an amount per wager by the first player.” Applicant’s argument continues by alleging that “Wright is related to information for entering a tournament rather than information associated with gameplay that will be ranked”. The Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be arguing the references instead of arguing the combination relied of references relied upon in the rejection. Thomas (e.g., see at least paragraphs 36 and 78) discloses ranking players by various criteria. As previously set forth and repeated above, Wright is relied upon to teach subsequent to transmitting the indication of the start of the event, receiving information associated with gameplay by a player from the EGM, the information including an amount won and an amount wagered (e.g., see at least paragraph 78 that states “It will be understood that other tournament participation criteria are equally applicable, including, for example, criteria that take into consideration, wager amounts, won funds, number of plays, etc. within the predefined period leading up to commencement of the enrolment period”).
On page 14-22, Applicant argues that claims 1-13 and 14-21 are directed to Statutory Subject Matter. More specifically, on page 16, Applicant argues that “claim 1 is noted directed to a judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Determining a ranking associated with one or more players based on information associated with gameplay by the player, including a combined score of two or more players (e.g., claims 1-5)
determining the type of metrics used to determine a ranking (e.g., claim 8, 9, 16)
determining that a player has earned a gameplay opportunity (e.g., see claims 10 and 18)
determining a prize based on the ranking (e.g., see claim 11)
determining/transmitting score milestones (e.g., see claims 12 and 20)
determining rankings based on a normalized ranking, including an amount won per an amount wagered (e.g., claims 1 and 13)
determining information associated with gameplay of an existing game on an EGM without modifying the existing game (e.g., claims 15 and 17)
The above noted recitations are rules for playing a wagering game, which are abstract ideas because the limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
In this case, the abstract ideas are based on rules for managing a secondary tournament game that could be implemented by a mental process. Further, the abstract ideas are also following a set of rules or instructions.
On page 16, second full paragraph, Applicant argues that the claims recite a game controller of an EGM. As set forth in the previous Office Action and above in detail, a game controller/EGM with a processor and memory are conventional in the art as noted by Vancura and a GUI is conventional in the art as noted by Wong.
ON page 16, third full paragraph, Applicant broadly asserts that the claims are eligible under prong 2B without providing arguments specific to the current claims. For at least these reasons, the 101 rejections are maintained.
On pages 17-22, Applicant argues that various other patent applications for gaming machines were held to be patent eligible. Each patent application is analyzed based on the features recited in that application’s claims. Since each application recite substantively different claim features, the Examiner is not persuaded by a list of claims/applications with some similar features that were previously identified as patent eligible. The current claims are not the same as the listed claims/applications.
The Examiner welcomes a phone conversation to discuss the 101 rejections in an attempt to advance prosecution.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights