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 1, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 1, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a gaming venue pool management system” (lines 3 and 6). The first instance of a claim element should generally subsequently be followed by referring to the element using “the” or “said”. Reciting “a gaming venue pool management system” a second time makes it unclear whether the two instances of “a gaming venue pool management system” refer to the same claim element or different claim elements. Dependent claims 2-7 inherit this deficiency by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of electronic player pool records” (lines 3-4), “each player pool record” (line 4), “the electronic player pool record” (lines 10-11 and 17-18). Consistent usage of the same terms is much preferred over creatively describing the same elements using different language. Using similar, yet slightly different claim language creates confusion. It is unclear whether each term is intended to refer to the same claim element or whether each term refers to a different claim element. Independent claims 8 and 18 recite similar language and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-17, and 19-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
maintaining, by a gaming venue pool management system, a plurality of electronic player pool records, each player pool record defining a configuration, player membership, a current status, and events for a player pool of the plurality of player pools;
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;
updating, by the gaming venue pool management system, the electronic player pool record for the first player pool based on the gaming activity of the plurality of members of the first player pool;
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;
updating, by the gaming venue pool management system, the electronic player pool record for the second player pool based on the gaming activity of the plurality of members of the second player pool;
ranking, by the gaming venue pool management system, the first player pool and the second player pool based on the updated electronic player pool record for the first player pool and the updated electronic player pool record for 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]).
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory 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 argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office should apply the Streamlined Eligibility Analysis and find the pending claims patent eligible.” (Response [p. 9])
Per MPEP 2016.06:
For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception.
The results of the streamlined analysis will always be the same as the full analysis, thus the streamlined analysis is not a means of avoiding a finding of ineligibility that would occur if a claim were to undergo the full eligibility analysis. Similarly, a claim that qualifies as eligible after Step 2A (Pathway B) or Step 2B (Pathway C) of the full analysis would also be eligible if the streamlined analysis (Pathway A) were applied to that claim. It may not be apparent that an examiner employed the streamlined analysis because the result is a conclusion that the claim is eligible, and there will be no rejection of the claim on eligibility grounds. In practice, the record may reflect the conclusion of eligibility simply by the absence of an eligibility rejection or may include clarifying remarks, when appropriate. (Response [p. 9])
The examiner does not agree that the eligibility of the present claims is self-evident. In fact, the claims are directed to subject matter that is clearly directed to abstract ideas. Furthermore, the outcome of the full analysis will always be the same as the outcome of the Streamlined Eligibility Analysis.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, applicant argues:
Applicant submits that the pending claims are not directed to, and cannot be construed as corresponding to, any of the examples provided in the Eligibility Guidance for certain methods of organizing human activity. For instance, none of the limitations of the pending claims recite "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)" or "commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)" or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)." For at least these reasons, the limitations cannot be construed as reciting limitations that are associated with certain methods of organizing human activity. (Response [p. 11])
Contrary to applicant’s analysis under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner maintains that the present claims 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. The claimed subject matter is similar to that recited in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, No. 2013-1663, slip op. at 4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014). The claims in Planet Bingo are directed to managing a bingo game. The present claims recite maintaining records, monitoring activity, updating records, ranking pools based on the records, detecting an event, and assigning an award based on the ranking. These closely track on the limitations of Planet Bingo.
Applicant compares the present claims to the claims in McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., No. 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 13, 2016). McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks, specifically determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. The examiner does not agree that the subject matter of McRO is similar to the subject matter of the present claims, making the comparison moot.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that in the instant case, the pending claims properly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The pending claims address a technical problem associated with electronic gaming. Specifically, a need to increase an incentive to play such games and thereby increase potential revenues to the casino or gaming venue. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) or 2106.05(a)) (Response [p. 14])
A need to increase an incentive to play games and thereby increase potential revenuers to the casino or gaming venue is not a technical problem associated with electronic gaming. Nothing in the present claims improves the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field.
The newly amended claim limitations further describe the abstract idea and are not considered additional elements.
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each additional element simply performs its respective function as discussed above.
The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 y 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