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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18th, 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on September 11th, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18229016 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a slot machine interface board (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-12, and a method of operating a slot machine interface board (i.e., a process) in claims 13-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A slot machine interface board comprising:
an interface;
a slot machine interface board processor supported by a housing of an electronic gaming machine; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the slot machine interface board processor, cause the slot machine interface board processor to:
capture data associated with a first game outcome determined by a processor of the electronic gaming machine, and
responsive to an occurrence of a game outcome verification event:
communicate, via the interface and to a component of an independently operating outcome verification system, electronic gaming machine state data received from the processor of the electronic gaming machine, and
responsive to a receipt, via the interface and from the component of the independently operating outcome verification system, of data associated with a determination that the captured data associated with the game outcome determined by the processor of the electronic gaming machine does not correspond to any comparison data retrieved based on the electronic gaming machine state data received from the processor of the electronic gaming machine, communicate data that results in a modification of an operation of the electronic gaming machine.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for capturing and comparing data and performing a determination based on if the data matches or varies from one another as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the modification/suspension of game play and payouts provided to an implicit customer.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on processor(s), a housing of an electronic gaming machine, and a memory device, it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, laptop computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including processor(s), a housing of an electronic gaming machine, and a memory device, amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0104], [0134], [0168], [0170], [0176]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0104], [0134], [0168], [0170], [0176]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of processor(s), a housing of an electronic gaming machine, and a memory device, as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 8 through 9 of the Applicant’s response, the Applicant presents various arguments concerning the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more including:
i. that the claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea falling under the enumerated grouping of Mental Processes, because the human mind “simply cannot readily detect anomalies in game play as suggested by the Office. In this case, a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper is not capable of communicating, via an interface and to a component of an independently operating outcome verification system, electronic gaming machine state data received from a processor of an electronic gaming machine nor communicating, responsive to a determination that captured data associated with a game outcome determined by the processor of the electronic gaming machine does not correspond to any comparison data retrieved based on the electronic gaming machine state data received from the processor of the electronic gaming machine, data that results in a modification of an operation of the electronic gaming machine” (Applicant’s Remarks Pages 8-9);
ii. that the claimed invention represents a technical improvement to computer devices that providing a security enhancements by verifying electronic gaming machine outcomes and selectively modifying the operation of the electronic gaming machine based thereon (Applicant’s Remarks Page 9); and
iii. that the slot machine interface board is not a generic conventional or well-known element and the Office has not provided a factual determination as required to support a conclusion that these additional elements (or combination of additional elements) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.07(a); Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Applicant’s Remarks Page 9).
Responsive to the Applicant’s arguments, the following is respectfully noted in corresponding enumeration and order as summarized herein above:
i.a) The Applicant’s proposal that a human mind cannot detect anomalies occurring on a computer is understood in essence to propose that the practice of the invention on a computer or in a computer environment renders that same as being excluded from the abstract grouping of Mental Processes, however regarding the same, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Sub III.C notes that the practice of a mental process on a computer does not exclude an abstract idea from falling under this grouping.
In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the patentee claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296. Analogous to the example in FairWarning, the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper is capable of performing Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and such readily enable human observers to detect anomalies in game play that indicate game tampering, player collusion, among other dangers to gaming floor operations that absent attempts to detect and thwart the same would render casino gaming unviable as a business.
The applicant’s arguments respectfully do not establish why the claimed invention would be excluded from the grouping of Mental process as proposed.
ii.a) The proposed technical improvement does not meet the requirements as set forth by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a) at least because the detection of discrepancies in game outcomes is not a technical problem but one that exists in game regardless if they are practiced with the use of computers or not, while the monitoring of games for discrepancies with expected game outcomes and restriction of operations based thereon is not understood to depart from the routine and conventional solution thereto as described in the preceding section and additional practical embodiments of the same generically referenced as “tilt”. Wherein a “tilt” is noted as being referenced in the Applicant’ specification as filed conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Additionally, the mere application of a judicial exception on a computer wherein the same is utilized merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea is not considered indicative of a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f) and would weigh against the incorporation of a practical application as proposed.
iii.a) The Applicant’s presented specification and claims do not define the referenced Slot Machine Interface Board (SMIB) beyond including a processor and various hardware/software interfaces and accordingly it is not immediately clear on what basis this element would be distinct from a generic computer as proposed. While it is noted that the SMIB is utilized, as a tool, to perform various functions with relation to the gaming machine, the use of the device does not alter the structure of the of the device nor does it alternatively support eligibility as a particular machine(See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Further the rejection as presented above notes that the Applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. and as such meets the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.07(a); Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as argued. Accordingly, in view of the Applicant’s disclosure and the drafting requirements of the same as set forth by 37 CFR 1.71. the SMIB is understood as a generic conventional or well-known element equivalent to a generic computer.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715