DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 07/22/2026, claims 2-19 remain pending, of which 2 and 11 were amended.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 2 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 11, having substantially similar features, was also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. An apparatus permitting a user to practice betting without chance of monetary loss, the apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to:
establish a profile for a user, the profile including user activities and information displayed to the user (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes)
transmit first data to a player device, the first data encoding a graphic that depicts a particular type of simulated mobile gaming device, wherein the graphic that depicts the particular type of simulated mobile gaming device includes a depicted screen;
apply customizations to the depicted screen of the simulated mobile gaming device, in accordance with a request by the user, wherein the customizations include locations of one or more buttons on the simulated mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
transmit second data to the player device, the second data encoding a first graphic used in a first game and images of advertisements or promotion, wherein the first graphic is to be presented on the depicted screen of the simulated mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
responsive to determining a location of the player device (Mental Processes), display on the depicted screen of the simulated mobile gaming device an interface that allows placement of one or more bets in the first game for other than money (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
generate a first outcome of the first game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
transmit to the player device an indication of the first outcome of the first game, wherein the indication of the first outcome is to be presented on the screen of the simulated mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
determine at least one first payout for the first game based on the one or more bets and based on the first outcome (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
transmit to the player device an indication of the at least one first payout and awards responsive to viewing the images of advertisements or promotions, wherein the indication of the at least one first payout is to be presented on the depicted screen of the simulated mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receive a player identifier from a casino device based on the profile (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receive an indication from an actual mobile gaming device, wherein the actual mobile gaming device has a similar appearance to or matches an appearance of the graphic that depicts the particular type of simulated mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
transmit to the actual mobile gaming device instructions describing how to access third data, wherein the third data encodes a second graphic that has an appearance that is based on the appearance of the first graphic used in the first game and indicated the applied customizations to the depicted screen, wherein the mobile actual gaming device displays one or more buttons at locations corresponding to the locations of the one or more buttons on the simulated mobile gaming device;
receive an indication of a second bet for other than money when the user selects a particular one of the one or more buttons of the actual mobile gaming device (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
alter the presentation of gaming information displayed on the actual mobile gaming device based on the profile information (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a memory, at least one processor, a player device, a casino device, an actual mobile gaming device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. In light of the applicant' s specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting wagering related activity, which is abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles and Practices under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. For example, the claims recite the limitation “receive an indication of a second bet for other than money when the user selects a particular one of the one or more buttons of the actual mobile gaming device” and “display…an interface that allows placement of one or more bets in the first game for other than money”. In light of applicant's specification (See Specification ¶18, ¶210-211), a “bet for other than money” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as including placement of a bet using points or credits which may be associated with a player account. Wagering is a form of hedging, which the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines expressly identify as a fundamental economic practice and therefore an abstract idea under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least fundamental economic principles or practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the wagering related economic activity while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. The claims recite commercial or legal interactions, specifically the formation and execution of a gambling contract between a player and a game operator. For example, the claims recite displaying plays of a game, displaying award amounts and providing a benefit (e.g., payouts) in response to player input. These steps collectively constitute the essential elements of a gambling transaction (i.e., the player places a wager, the system determines outcomes and the system provides consideration (e.g., payouts)). Such interactions fall within the Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, which includes agreements, obligations and other contractual relationships and which are included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the commercial/legal aspects of a gambling transaction while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims
C. Several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting rules for managing player interactions and game behavior, which falls squarely within the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping. For example, the claims include limitations wherein an outcome is generated for a first game, an indication of the outcome is transmitted to a player device and presented on the player device, and a payout for the game, based on the bets, is determined and presented to the player. These limitations describe following a prescribed sequence of steps, conditions and outcomes that govern the player’s interaction with the gaming system. The Federal Circuit has held that such game related rules and player interaction logic constitute abstract ideas (See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim limitations directed to generating outcomes, determining awards associated with the outcomes, and presenting players with payouts based on the outcome are categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, as they merely recite the rules and instructions for conducting the game and managing player behavior, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., determine at least one first payout for the first game based on the one or more bets and based on the first outcome, determine a location, identifying a player based on a profile, and determining what information to alter based on the profile information), which are abstract ideas included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing observations, evaluations, calculations, comparisons, or judgements in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper, such as a casino host observing player habits, looking up a player’s habits, looking up a player’s record, and selecting game parameters tailored to that player) the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
E. Advertising and/or marketing or sales activities or behaviors (e.g., transmit to the player device an indication of the at least one first payout and awards responsive to viewing the advertisement or promotion, wherein the indication of the first payout is to be presented on the screen), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions and/or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These functions related to advertising and/or marketing or sales activities or behaviors insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the functions related to Advertising and/or Marketing while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
F. Tracking customer activities, customer profiling, and customer relationship management (e.g., “establish a profile for a user, the profile including user activities and information displayed to the user”, “receive a player identifier from a casino device based on the profile”, and “alter the presentation of gaming information displayed on the actual mobile gaming device based on the profile information”), which fall within the grouping of Certain methods or Organizing Human Activity (specifically Commercial or Legal Interactions,, such as marketing and customer relationship management, and/or Managing Personal Behavior or Interactions Between People). Compiling history on a customer’s activities and tailoring what information is subsequently presented to that customer based on their profile represents a conventional business and marketing practice. These functions related to advertising and/or marketing or sales activities or behaviors insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the functions related to Advertising and/or Marketing while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 3-10 and 12-19:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 2-19 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a memory, at least one processor, a player device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as:
“transmit second data to a player device, the second data encoding a graphic that depicts a particular type of mobile gaming device, wherein the graphic that depicts the particular type of simulated mobile gaming device includes a screen”;
“transmit to the actual mobile gaming device instructions describing how to access third data, wherein the third data encodes a second graphic that has an appearance that is based on the appearance of the first graphic used in the first game and indicated the applied customizations to the depicted screen, wherein the mobile actual gaming device displays one or more buttons at locations corresponding to the locations of the one or more buttons on the simulated mobile gaming device”.
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as mere transmitting of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a computer memory, a processor, and display are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2003/0050111. US 2003/0050111 discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a controller with a memory, display and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶2). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, applicant argues that similar to the claims found eligible in CoreWireless, “the present claims are drawn to an improved user interface which provides advantages over prior-art systems and enable a gaming provider to provide an enhanced, current, and customized gaming experience (See Remarks, pgs. 9-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant’s reliance on CoreWireless is misplaced. In CoreWireless, the claims recited a specific, unconventional two-window GUI structure that directly solved a technical navigation problem inherent to small screens (i.e., accessing unlaunched application functions directly without navigating deep hierarchical menus). The instant claims recite no specific display architecture, rendering mechanism, or data structure. Rather, the claims merely recite results-oriented functional requirements, namely, displaying buttons at corresponding locations and altering the presentation of gaming information based on the profile information. Altering what information or controls are shown to a player merely tailors the content to enhance the player’s entertainment or gaming experience, it does not improve the operational functioning of the display or computer itself.
Applicant argues that, like the claims in McRO, the instant claims provide “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome”. Specifically, applicant argues that “practicing wagering on a simulated interface that mimics a real wagering device and enabling a provider to customize gaming content via a user profile, adds “significantly more” than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field…and adds unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application” (See Remark, pgs. 11-12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant’s reliance on McRO is misplaced. In McRO, the claims recited a specific, unconventional set of steps that automated 3D facial animation across an objective technological pipeline, which were able to replace prior subjective human artist techniques. In contrast, the instant claims recite no technical rules, mathematical algorithms, or technical processes for automating a technological task. The claims merely recite the abstract concepts of customer profiling, game rules, and simulated wagering implemented through generic hardware performing conventional data collection, data transmission, and standard display rendering. Reciting a commercial or gaming goal (e.g., familiarizing a user with a wagering device via simulation) using generic computing components does not constitute a technical solution to a technical problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
