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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
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 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 9-14, a method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-8 and 15-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A method for managing player pools, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a pool management system, a plurality of electronic records, each record of the plurality of electronic records comprising configuration data defining a player pool of a plurality of player pools;
maintaining, by the pool management system, a plurality of electronic player records, each electronic player record comprising preferences for each player of a plurality of players, wherein the preferences comprise a list of other players;
identifying, by the pool management system, through a gaming system, a player of the plurality of players the gaming venue;
generating, by the pool management system, an ordered list comprising a set of player pools of the plurality of player pools, wherein the set of player pools is selected from the plurality of player pools based on the preferences of the identified player and the plurality of electronic records and wherein the player pools in the set of player pools are ranked based on the configuration data defining each player pool in the set of player pools; and
presenting, by the pool management system, through a user interface of the gaming system the generated ordered list of the plurality of player pools to the player.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for placing information in order and presenting the ordered information in a graphical representation as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial interactions involving advertising, marketing or sales activities, and business relations, and managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving an interface for presenting and managing player pools including adding players to those pools of other players in certain claims.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a pool management system/a gaming system it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, servers, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a pool management system/a gaming system amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0039]-[0040], [0050], [0053]-[0054]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0039]-[0040], [0050], [0053]-[0054]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a pool management system/a gaming system, a processor, and a memory as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 5, 9, 12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imudia et al (US 9,990,803) in view of Ikejiri et al (US 2008/0268952)
Claim 1: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches a method for managing player pools, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a pool management system, a plurality of electronic records, each record of the plurality of electronic records comprising configuration data defining a player pool of a plurality of player pools (-Wherein the claimed player pool is described as subscription based progressive structure- Imudia Figure 12A; Col 16: 38-56);
maintaining, by the pool management system, a plurality of electronic player records, each electronic player record comprising preferences for each player of a plurality of players (-Describing the tracking of each individual players preferences- Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42), wherein the preferences comprise a list of other players (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; Element 212);
identifying, by the pool management system, through a gaming system, a player of the plurality of players the gaming venue (-inherent to the communication therewith through the game system- Imudia Figures 5B, 5D, 13; Col 12: 54-13:10);
generating, by the pool management system, an ordered list comprising a set of player pools of the plurality of player pools, wherein the set of player pools is selected from the plurality of player pools based on the preferences of the identified player and the plurality of electronic records (-wherein the order list of options is based on existing enrollment capacity and player preferences- Imudia Figures 5C, 13; Col 3:53-4:12), and wherein the player pools in the set of player pools are ranked based on the configuration data defining each player pool in the set of player pools (-wherein the pools are ranked by jackpot amount- Imudia Figure 5C; Element 538; Col 13:11-62); and
presenting, by the pool management system, through a user interface of the gaming system the generated ordered list of the plurality of player pools to the player (Imudia Figures 5C, 5D; Col 13:28-62).
Imudia teaches the invention as set forth above including tracking various player preferences through a player tracking system ( Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42). While Imudia is silent regarding the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players, Ikejiri teaches this was a known feature in analogous gaming devices (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; element 212) at the time of invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players as taught by Ikejiri in the invention of Imudia to provide the predictable and expected result of enhancing players ability to engage in game play with their friends.
Claim 5: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein presenting the generated ordered list of the plurality of player pools to the player further comprises providing an indication of an available incentive for joining one of the player pools of the plurality of player pools(-Jackpot amounts- Imudia Figure 5C).
Claim 9: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches a system comprising:
a processor (Imudia Abstract; Figure 3; Element 302); and
a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which (Imudia Abstract; Figure 3; Element 304; Col 8:9-20; 24:1-39), when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
maintain a plurality of electronic records, each record of the plurality of electronic records comprising configuration data defining a player pool of a plurality of player pools(-Wherein the claimed player pool is described as subscription based progressive structure- Imudia Figure 12A; Col 16: 38-56);
maintain a plurality of electronic player records, each electronic player record comprising preferences for each player of a plurality of players (-Describing the tracking of each individual players preferences- Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42), wherein the preferences comprise a list of other players (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; Element 212);
identify a player of the plurality of players of the gaming venue through a gaming system, of the gaming venue (-inherent to the communication therewith through the game system- Imudia Figures 5B, 5D 13, 14; Col 12: 54-13:10);
generate a list comprising a set of player pools of the plurality of player pools wherein the set of player pools is selected from the plurality of player pools based on the preferences of the identified player and the plurality of electronic records (-wherein the order list of options is based on existing enrollment capacity and player preferences- Imudia Figures 5C, 13; Col 3:53-4:12), and wherein the player pools in the set of player pools are ranked based on the configuration data defining each player pool in the set of player pools (-wherein the pools are ranked by jackpot amount- Imudia Figure 5C; Element 538; Col 13:11-62);
present the generated list of the plurality of player pools to the player through a user interface of the gaming system (Imudia Figure 6B; Elements 640, 650, 652; Col 12:54-13:10, 14:50-15:6);
receive, from the player, through the gaming system, a selection of two of the plurality of player pools (Imudia Figure 6B; Elements 640, 650, 652; Col 12:54-13:10, 14:50-15:6);
generate a new electronic record of the plurality of records, the new electronic record defining a new player pool of the plurality of player pools based on the electronic records defining the selected two of the plurality of player pools (Imudia Figures 6B, 10; Col 14:50-15:6).
Imudia teaches the invention as set forth above including tracking various player preferences through a player tracking system ( Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42). While Imudia is silent regarding the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players, Ikejiri teaches this was a known feature in analogous gaming devices (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; element 212) at the time of invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players as taught by Ikejiri in the invention of Imudia to provide the predictable and expected result of enhancing players ability to engage in game play with their friends.
Claim 12: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the new record defines a maximum number of players for the new player pool (Imudia Figure 13; Col 17:3-37).
Claim 14: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the new record defines a rule for allocating winnings for the new player pool (Imudia Col 14:50-15:6).
Claim 15: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches a method for conducting a player pool, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a pool management system, a plurality of electronic records, each record of the plurality of electronic records comprising configuration data defining a configuration for a player pool of a plurality of player pools (-Wherein the claimed player pool is described as subscription based progressive structure- Imudia Figure 12A; Col 16: 38-56);
maintaining, by the pool management system, a plurality of electronic player records, each electronic player record comprising preferences for each player of a plurality of players (-Describing the tracking of each individual players preferences- Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42), wherein the preferences comprise a list of other players (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; Element 212);
identifying, by the pool management system, a player of the plurality of players of the gaming venue through a mobile device of the player (-inherent to the communication therewith- Imudia Figures 5B, 13; Col 9:50-55, 12: 54-13:10);
generating, by the pool management system, an ordered list comprising a set of player pools of the plurality of player pools, wherein the set of player pools is selected from the plurality of player pools based on the preferences of the identified player and the plurality of electronic records (-wherein the order list of options is based on existing enrollment capacity and player preferences- Imudia Figures 5C, 13; Col 3:53-4:12) and wherein the player pools in the set of player pools are ranked based on the configuration data defining each player pool in the set of player pools (-wherein the pools are ranked by jackpot amount- Imudia Figure 5C; Element 538; Col 13:11-62);
presenting, by the pool management system, the generated ordered list of the plurality of player pools to the player through the user interface of the mobile device of the player (Imudia Figure 6B; Elements 640, 650, 652; Col 9:50-55, 14:50-15:6);
receiving, by the pool management system, from the mobile device of the player an indication of a selected player pool of the plurality of player pools(Imudia Figure 6B; Elements 640, 650, 652; Col 9:50-55, 14:50-15:6); and
conducting, by the pool management system, the selected player pool according to the configuration defined for the selected player pool (Imudia Figure 9; Element 912).
Imudia teaches the invention as set forth above including tracking various player preferences through a player tracking system ( Imudia Col 6:38-44, 9:64-10:3; 10:41-42). While Imudia is silent regarding the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players, Ikejiri teaches this was a known feature in analogous gaming devices (Ikejiri Paragraph [0031]; Figure 3; Element 212) at the time of invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the tracking of each player’s preferences of other players as taught by Ikejiri in the invention of Imudia to provide the predictable and expected result of enhancing players ability to engage in game play with their friends.
Claim 18: The combination of Imudia & Ikejiri teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the configuration defined for the selected player pool defines a rule for handling an award of winnings in the selected player pool(Imudia Figures 6B, 10; Col 14:50-15:6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on page 7 of the above dated Applicant remarks, the Applicant proposes that the claimed invention meets the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101 based on the amendments as presented.
Responsive to the preceding presented Applicant amendments and consideration of the same, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, has been updated as presented herein above and remains applicable to the claimed invention as amended.
Continuing on pages 7-9 of the Applicant’s response, the Applicant presents the previously applied prior art of Imudia (US 9,990,803) does not anticipate features of the claimed invention as amended including “…wherein the set of player preferences includes a list of other players…”.
Responsive to the preceding, the claimed invention of claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 14-15, and 18 as amended now stands rejected under the combination of Imudia & Ikejiri, and addresses the newly amended limitations including the limitations directed to “…wherein the set of player preferences includes a list of other players…”
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights