DETAILED ACTION
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 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention can not be performed in the mind, particularly the acts of stitching and determining one or more particular gaming sequences. However, Applicant’s explanation for both heavily relies language from the Specification that is not currently present in the claim. While the claims should be read in light of the Specification, unrecited elements should not be introduced into the claim to further define the claimed language as such is affording the claim a distinct reading, when it the language’s itself encompasses a broader interpretation. Thus, the opinion stated in the last Non-Final Rejection, wherein Examiner stated “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,” is within reason as the reading of the claims is “consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term.” (MPEP 2111). For these reasons, when reading “"determining, in the one or more gaming session reports associated with the one or more player identifiers, one or more particular gaming sequences,” it would not be proper to read “the analyzer” into the limitation. This is why Applicant’s further discussion regarding whether the claims can be performed in the mind is moot, because Applicant is reading the Specification, well past the ordinary interpretation of the claim.
Applicant, also states that the claims reflect Claim 2 of Example 37 of the USPTO Guidance, wherein the Guidance states that the step of “determining the amount of use of each icon using a processor that tracks how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time.” This is because only a processor can access computer memory and its usage. However, the instant application states, “determining, in the one or more gaming session reports associated with the one or more player identifiers, one or more particular gaming sequences,” and this does not require a processor and can be tracked using pen and paper. The claimed limitation is more in alignment with the limitations of Claim 1 of Example 37 which states “determining, by a processor, the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time,” which was also determined a mental process.
Applicant also argues that the claims provide a practical application. The first argument is that the Examiner did not consider the additional elements of the claims when determining the invention’s practical application. Examiner disagrees. Examiner did consider said additional elements, however said additional elements did not add to the practical application of the invention. Next, Applicant argues that the claims presents an improvement to game monitoring technology. However, Examiner disagrees as even with outputting information to put emphasis on a particular set of information, the claims is still merely outputting information. This could be the equivalent of adjusting the size of the font used to display said output. Applicant also states that the stitching process improves technology by creating structed session reports from raw gaming data. However, translating raw information and displaying such as new information is not a problem long existent in computer technology in need to improvement. Lastly, Applicant states that the claimed invention claims a particular machine, wherein Applicant identifies the claimed servers and remote devices. This does not present a particular machine since there is no explanation about how said components structurally work together in a manner that would be distinct from another parent-client device arrangement.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims fulfill Step 2B and provide significantly more to the invention. Examiner disagrees. The functions of the claimed invention are directed towards the abstract idea which was evaluated in Step 2A, and thus cannot be the inventive concept which is evaluated under Step 2B (See SAVVY DOG SYSTEMS, LLC v. PENNSYLVANIA COIN, LLC, stating “We determine that these steps are abstract ideas them selves—whether viewed as part of a set of rules for playing a game or part of a game previewed to the player before committing to playing—and thus cannot be an inventive concept under Alice step two.”). Reviewing the inventive concept under Step 2B, the remaining elements includes well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware. Thus, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights