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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 09/16/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been currently canceled. No claims have been amended and no new matter appears to have been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/222764. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions are directed to substantially similar subject matter. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the referenced copending Application, as follows: the difference between independent Claim 1 of instant application, 18/222750 and Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/222764 are highlighted in the following table.
Claim 1 of 18/222750
Claim 1 of 18/222764
A system comprising:
An system comprising:
a processor; and
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of a progressive award, and
cause a display, by a display device, of a first progressive award, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event:
responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event:
enable a plurality of bids to be placed on the progressive award during an auction bidding sequence, and
enable a plurality of bids to be placed on the first progressive award during an auction bidding sequence, wherein a portion of at least one of the plurality of bids funds a second progressive award, and
responsive to one of the plurality of bids determined to be a winning bid: cause the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the winning bid, and
responsive to one of the plurality of bids determined to be a winning bid, cause the first progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the winning bid.
retain a portion of each of the plurality of bids not determined to be the winning bid.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: cause a display, […], of a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event: enable a plurality of bids to be placed on the progressive award during an auction bidding sequence, and responsive to one of the plurality of bids determined to be a winning bid: cause the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the winning bid, and retain a portion of each of the plurality of bids not determined to be the winning bid. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claim 1 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-9 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 1 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-9 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 2-9 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: cause a display, […], of a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event: enable a plurality of bids to be placed on the progressive award during an auction bidding sequence, responsive to one of the plurality of bids determined to be a winning bid: cause the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the winning bid, and retain a first portion of at least a first bid of the plurality of bids not determined to be the winning bid, and responsive to none of the plurality of bids determined to be the winning bid, retain a second portion of at least the first bid. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 10. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 10 recites the additional element(s) of “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claim 10 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 11-18 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 10 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 11-18 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 10. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 10, Claims 11-18 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: cause a display, […], of a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event prior to any occurrence of any progressive award triggering event associated with the progressive award and one of a plurality of bids placed on the progressive award during an auction bidding sequence determined to be a winning bid: cause the progressive award to be provided to a first player associated with the winning bid, wherein during the auction bidding sequence, no progressive award triggering event can occur in association with the progressive award, and retain a portion of at least one of the plurality of bids not determined to be the winning bid. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 19. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., 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), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 19 recites the additional element(s) of “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, […]. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to generate data, compute a result, and return the result to a user amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, Claim 19 is rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claim 20 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claim 19 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claim 20 does not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claim 19. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 19, Claim 20 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Barclay et al. (US 2011/0269548 A1) discloses the concept of the system can also auction the opportunity to perform in the event, for instance, if multiple players are eligible, the system could hold an auction for the opportunity to be selected as the player participant, and when the award for the network-wide event is incremental, and progressive (e.g., when an award for participating in the network-wide event is a progressive jackpot), then the system can increase the auction increments as the progressive jackpot amount grows.
Baerlocher et al. (US 2008/0108401 A1) discloses the concept of the present gaming system and method is employed in a group slots game wherein the auction determines the player who gets to pick which symbol combination(s) are associated with designated awards, such as progressive awards; and in another example embodiment, the auction is employed in association with the trigging of a shared progressive award, wherein, if a designated outcome, such as a progressive determination outcome, is generated in a play of a game, a secondary sequence is provided to determine if the shared progressive award is provided to one or more players.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Regarding the assertion that the claims are directed to “mental processes,” Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not include elements which are performed as a mental process in the human mind or can be performed by a human using a pen and paper. Specifically, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)CIID explains that claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because “the human mind 1s not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims”).
In this case, a system that causes a display, by a display device, of a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of an award auction triggering event: enables a plurality of bids to be placed on the progressive award during an auction bidding sequence, and responsive to one of the plurality of bids determined to be a winning bid: causes the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the winning bid, and retains a portion of each of the plurality of bids not determined to be the winning bid cannot practically be performed in the human mind or performed by a human using a pen and paper. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed systems and methods have been mischaracterized as “mental processes.”
Specifically, the particular manner in which the system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem pertaining to the retirement of progressive awards. While gaming establishment operators often want to reconfigure the offerings on a gaming establishment floor to meet user demand, since certain regulations provide that an offered progressive award cannot be retired until provided to a user, such gaming establishment operators are limited in the ability to removing certain offerings associated with an active progressive award. A technical problem thus exists regarding how to retire a progressive award while adhering to applicable regulations pertaining to timing restrictions on when a progressive award may and may not be retired or otherwise made unavailable to be won.
In solving these technical limitations and as described in detail in at least paragraphs [0015] to [0019] and [0040] of the present application, the systems operates to introduce an alternative avenue to retire a progressive award via an auction bidding sequence. Such an auction bidding sequence and the timing of offering such a sequence enables a gaming establishment operator a technical mechanism to expeditiously remove an otherwise active or incremented progressive award in a way not previously available. Put differently, rather than waiting for a progressive award triggering event to occur to potentially retire a progressive award, the system expedites the opportunity to retire that progressive award by initiating an auction bidding sequence for that progressive award.
As such and unlike prior systems that operated in a static mode of operation in which a progressive award is only available responsive to an award triggering event (which, as described above, introduced technical limitations pertaining to the employment of progressive awards), the claimed systems offer an alternative avenue to obtain the progressive award via an auction bidding sequence available independent of any award triggering event (and thus expediting the lifetime of the progressive award). Such a configuration introduces an operational improvement that provides that a progressive award can be taken offline while staying within the various regulatory requirements associated with progressive awards and when they can be taken offline or otherwise retired. This technical arrangement enables gaming establishment operators the freedom to reconfigure a gaming establishment floor without having to wait for the occurrence of any progressive award triggering events.
More specifically, since certain regulations require that funds contributed to a progressive award by players must be provided to one or more players (which prevents a gaming establishment from taking a progressive award offline while any amount of player provided funds have been contributed to the progressive award), the claimed systems employs an auction bidding sequence to expedite the providing of the progressive award and the ability of the gaming establishment operator to then take the progressive award offline. In other words, by using an auction bidding sequence to provide a progressive award, the claimed system offers an accelerated avenue to retire a progressive award and effectively eliminate any fund liability to manage. As such, the selective employment of an auction bidding sequence represents an improved gaming establishment floor management tool that saves gaming establishment operators time and increases efficiencies in the retirement of progressive awards.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing an alternative means of retiring progressive awards via an auction bidding sequence versus the standard progressive award triggering event is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides an alternative to awarding a user a progressive award. Managing a progressive award, wherein a plurality of bids are placed thereto during an auction bidding sequence and such that a player placing the winning bid is provided the progressive award and retaining a portion of the bids not determined to be the winning bid (including variations of how portions of bids are retained) pertain to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 15-19, 40) does provide support for the benefits to the gaming establishment by providing an alternative means to retire progressive awards as opposed to the standard triggering event that conforms to the gaming regulations required that progressive awards be awarded to a user and/or be maintained until such time, wherein operation time of progressive awards can be reduced and efficiency in timely retiring progressive awards can be improved; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for managing or awarding/retiring progressive awards e.g. provides another way of awarding progressive awards to the user. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein maintained.
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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715