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 February 19, 2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated November 19, 2025. 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 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 8-17 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (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 method for managing a plurality of player pools, the method comprising:
monitoring, by a gaming venue pool management system, through a plurality of gaming systems, gaming activity of a plurality of members of a first player pool of the plurality of player pools within electronic games executing on the plurality of gaming systems;
monitoring, by the gaming venue pool management system, through the plurality of gaming systems, gaming activity of a plurality of members of a second player pool of the plurality of player pools within the electronic games executing on the plurality of gaming systems;
ranking, by the gaming venue pool management system, the first player pool and the second player pool based on the monitored gaming activity of the plurality of members of the first player pool and the monitored gaming activity of the plurality of members of the second player pool;
detecting, by the gaming venue pool management system, through the plurality of gaming systems, an occurrence of a pre-defined event within the electronic games executing on the plurality of gaming systems; and
in response to detecting the occurrence of the pre-defined event, assigning, by the gaming venue pool management system, an award to at least one member of the first player pool or the second player pool based on the ranking of the first player pool and the second player pool.
The present claims relate generally to managing game play on electronic gaming systems and more particularly to managing player pools for users of electronic gaming systems (Specification [0001]). These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recites assigning an award to players in player pools based on player rankings. This falls into the sub-category of fundamental economic practice and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. 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 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 gaming venue pool management system, a plurality of gaming systems, a processor, a memory, and mobile devices. 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 are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a gaming venue pool management system (Douglas et al., US 2003/0069648 A1, Computer-based financial management systems are well known prior to the present invention and are available from many sources [0014]); (Hardy et al., US 2009/0054148 A1, player tracking systems, such as International Game Technology's Advantage system and Bally Technology's Slot Management System and Table Management System are also well known [0007]);
a plurality of gaming systems (Stupak, US 6,102,799, gaming machines such electro-mechanical and video display slot machines are well known and popular gaming devices [C1:9-22]); and
a processor, a memory (Bradford et al., US 6,612,928 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game [C8:7-21]); and
mobile devices (Midholt, US 9,921,658 B2, mobile electronic devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, etc., have become increasingly widespread [C1:16-28]).
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 Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant “traverses the rejection” with no arguments, relying only on amended claim language.
The examiner maintains that the rejections, as recited above, are proper. Further defining the plurality of player pools is not considered sufficient to overcome the rejections. The present claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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