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 12/17/2025, 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 therefor, 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 Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
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:
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;
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; and
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).
The limitations in claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) recites 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, 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”. In light of applicant's specification (See Specification ¶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 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), which is an abstract idea 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 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 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 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 Eligibility Guidance
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 Eligibility Guidance
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;
“receive a player identifier from a casino device”; 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”.
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 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that enabling a user to practice wagering without monetary loss constitutes a technological improvement and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Enabling a user to wager, using non-monetary units, is a business concept, not a technical improvement. Applicant’s specification explicitly discloses that players may place wagers using “points, currency, credits, play money, or other tokens with no real value” (See Specification, ¶18), which clearly shows that the claimed invention is drawn to simulated wagering. The specification further discloses that allowing a player to engage in the simulated wagering using “points, currency, credits, play money, or other tokens with no real value” solves problems such as allowing a player to practice using a mobile gaming device to allow the player to be less intimated or frustrated when using a real mobile gaming device for the first time (See Specification, ¶17) or allowing a player to play wagering games in locations where gaming is not permitted (See Specification, ¶37). These “improvements” are not a technological advancement (i.e., do not improve the computer functionality), but rather, are regulatory or business improvements, which utilize generic computer components to apply the abstract idea to a particular environment.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to BASCOM because the claims allegedly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. BASCOM involved a non-conventional and non-generic network architecture for filtering content. In contrast, the instant claims merely recite generic computer function (e.g., transmitting graphics, display a simulated device, receiving user inputs, determining outcomes and transmitting results), implemented using conventional processors, memory and displays. Further, the specification describes these components at a high level of generality or as conventional elements (See Specification, ¶363-369) and does not disclose any unconventional architecture or technical arrangement comparable to BASCOM. Accordingly, the claims do not reflect the type of inventive ordered combination recognized in BASCOM.
Applicant argues that the instant claims provide an improvement to a GUI similar to the claims found in CoreWireless Licensing SARLv LG Electronics (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In CoreWireless the claims recited a specific improvement to the GUI and a manner of presenting information that solved a technological problem wherein the size of the display screen was too small to allow efficient use. The instant claims merely depict a simulated mobile gaming device, presents advertisements and display buttons for placing bets. These are routine and conventional presentation steps and do not provide any improvements to the GUI technology or computer operation. Further, the specification does not disclose any such technical improvements related to the GUI (e.g., improvements to: rendering, GUI data structures, GUI related memory usage, or interface mechanics). The claimed interface simply implements the abstract idea of simulated wagering using a conventional GUI and display.
Applicant argues that, similar to McRO, the claims provide “a particular way to achieve a desired outcome” (See Remarks, pgs. 11-12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. McRO involved specific, detailed rules that improved computer animation technology by automating a previously manual process. The instant claims include no comparable rules, algorithms or technical constraints. Rather, the instant claims are drawn to well-understood, routine and conventional information processing and display operations (e.g., displaying graphics, receiving bets, generating outcomes and determining payouts). The fact that the interface “mimics” a real device does not constitute a technological improvement, but rather, is merely a presentation of information utilizing generic computer components to apply the abstract idea to a particular environment.
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 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
Prosecution Insights