Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims disclose an abstract idea that lack practical application, and significantly more.
Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of a mental process as it is a manner of “collecting, analyzing, and displaying an output,” as stated in Electric Power Grid and explained in MPEP 2106. Here, the step of receiving gaming session data, results, historical wins, historical losses, historical wagers, and player identifiers, reflect collecting information. Next, the data is the system conducts the process of “analyzing the one or more gaming session reports associated with the one or more player identifiers” and thus, the analyzing step of Electric Power Grid has been performed. Finally, the step of “based on analyzing the one or more gaming session reports associated with the one or more player identifiers,” adjusting one or more displayed items satisfies the step of displaying an output to the user. Therefore, the claims disclose a mental process as directed by the Court and the MPEP. Additionally, other limitations teaching determining a pattern of play also represents a mental process as a person can review game information and determine a pattern of play including how often a user plays and decisions the user makes. This is a form of mental process as it classifies as part of the analysis prong of the Electric Power Grid Holding.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims only discuss adjusting display items in accordance with game reports, without any previous stated reasoning as to why such would be an improvement. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
3. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more as the claim language only recites electronic gaming devices however such are generic computers for performing the steps above. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible. Therefore the abstract idea lacks significantly more to make the claims eligible patent subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to state the data is “stitched” instead of stored. Stitching is merely a means of joining data, such as merging spreadsheets. Traditionally in bookkeeping, data has been adjoined by storing data on the same page, or putting a group of similar pages together. Thus, stitching still represents a mental process wherein an individual can organize recorded data using simple papers, folders, etc. Thus, the claims represent an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that such can not be a mental process as the claims are analogous to Example 37 where the claimed invention records user selection data and the Example states that such can not be reasonably recorded in the human mind. However, recording data is not part of the mental process stated in the explanation above nor is it part of Electric Power Grid. Instead, Electric Power Grid states that the data is received is, and the analyzed and a result is outputted, wherein both steps consist of mental steps. Thus, Applicant’s arguments towards recording game data being a mental process is moot as such is not being argued by Examiner.
Applicant argues that the claims represent a practical application and an improvement to computer technology under the holding in McRo wherein the Court stated that the improvement does not have to had previously existed in computer technology but instead of a manual process. However, the manual process in McRo was a manual animation process that was performed using a computer, and thus the improvement through automating the manual process, was still improving computer technology. The claimed invention in the present application does not improve a previous process where users found it a manually process that was implemented on a computer to be difficult like which was discussed in McRo. Therefore, the holding in McRo, does not apply to the instant application. Instead the instant application is directed towards better understanding player behavior (see paragraphs [0007, 0008]: “However, these processes do not help in understanding player behavior. For example, when a player decides to leave a gaming machine, do they do so when they run out of credits on the machine, hit a significant jackpot, or go for a long period of time without hitting a significant jackpot? Do players typically wager maximum credits for long periods and drop to lesser wagers when credits run low, or do they typically change wager sizes throughout a gambling session? What is needed to answer these questions and others is a way to determine player behavior on a gaming machine.). No difficulties have been mentioned in the application, and Examiner finds it difficult to deduce said difficulties as the claims fail to even mention auditing previous data to extract player behavior.
Regarding arguments directed towards the previous discussion of whether significantly more is presented by the claimed invention, the limitations only mention electronic gaming machines, that lack any type of descriptors other than their functions. Thus, the gaming devices represent only generic computers and fail to present significantly more.
For those reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715