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 11/10/2025. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and Claims 5-6 and 14 have been currently canceled. Currently, Claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the corresponding claim objection. The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
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, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15-20 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 […]: […]: […]; and […]; receiving, […], an indication of a first contribution to a first progressive jackpot from a first contributor, wherein the first contributor comprises a first unique contributor identifier (CID), […]; in response to receiving the indication of the first contribution to the first progressive jackpot: (a) calculating an updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and (b) storing, […], the updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and returning an indication of the updated value for the first progressive jackpot to the first contributor; receiving, […], an indication of a second contribution to a first progressive jackpot from a second contributor, wherein the second contributor comprises a second unique contributor identifier (CID), […]; in response to receiving the indication of the second contribution to the first progressive jackpot: (c) calculating a second updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and (d) storing, […], the second updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and returning an indication of the second updated value for the first progressive jackpot to the second contributor. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar limitations are found in claims 13 and 17). 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 recites 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: one or more processors; memory; and control logic, implemented using the one or more processors and memory, configured to perform operations, comprising: executing a hosted gaming service, wherein the hosted gaming service comprises: a progressive jackpot application programming interface (API); and one or more storage repositories; […], at the hosted gaming service via the progressive jackpot API, […], and […] a land-based casino device, an online player; […] storing, in the one or more storage repositories, […]; and […]”. 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 take 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).
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the system for performing operations for a progressive jackpot can be implemented on a generic computer.
[0029] FIG. 1 illustrates several different models of EGMs which may be networked to various gaming related servers. Shown is a system 100 in a gaming environment including one or more server computers 102 (e.g., slot servers of a casino) that are in communication, via a communications network, with one or more gaming devices 104A-104X (EGMs, slots, video poker, bingo machines, etc.), which server computers 102 can implement one or more aspects of the present disclosure. The gaming devices 104A-104X may alternatively be portable and/or remote gaming devices such as, but not limited to, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, or a game console. Gaming devices 104A-104X utilize specialized software and/or hardware to form non-generic, particular machines or apparatuses that comply with regulatory requirements regarding devices used for wagering or games of chance that provide monetary awards.
As such, the progressive jackpot executed by at least one processor, for implementing the abstract idea, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 29).
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, Claims 1, 13, and 17 are rejected as shown above. Additionally, Claims 2-4, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-20 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 2-4, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-20 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 2-4, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Link et al. (US 2014/0080590 A1) (henceforth, “Link”).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, Link teaches a system, method, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the following operations:
one or more processors; memory; and control logic, implemented using the one or more processors and memory, configured to perform operations (e.g., gaming enterprise system 801 in FIGS. 4A and B and Para. 101), comprising:
executing a hosted gaming service (e.g., progressives server 849 in Para. 101), wherein the hosted gaming service comprises: a progressive jackpot application programming interface (API) (e.g., game program uses gaming kernel 300 by calling into application programming interface (API) 302, which is part of game manager 304 in Para. 88-89 and 91-92); and one or more storage repositories (e.g., progressive manager 336 and progressives server 849 in Para. 96 and 101);
receiving, at the hosted gaming service via the progressive jackpot API, an indication of a first contribution to a first progressive jackpot from a first contributor (e.g., contributions from the wagers to play the primary slot machine game (or table game) are made to the progressive in Para. 31), wherein the first contributor comprises a first unique contributor identifier (CID) (e.g., Player account in Para. 109-110 and 120), and wherein the first contributor comprises a land-based casino device (e.g., gaming device 10 in Fig. 5 and Para. 108);
in response to receiving the indication of the first contribution to the first progressive jackpot: (a) calculating an updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and (b) storing, in the one or more storage repositories, the updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and returning an indication of the updated value for the first progressive jackpot to the first contributor (e.g., progressive jackpot function in Para. 150);
receiving, at the hosted gaming service via the progressive jackpot API, an indication of a second contribution to a first progressive jackpot from a second contributor (e.g., systems used to engage the customers remotely, including progressives and jackpots in Para. 134 and 31), wherein the second contributor comprises a second unique contributor identifier (CID) (e.g., Player account in Para. 109-110 and 120 and remote access in Para. 130), and wherein the second contributor comprises an online player (e.g., various applications provided to personal computer 206 in Fig. 5, Para. 108 and 111);
in response to receiving the indication of the second contribution to the first progressive jackpot: (c) calculating a second updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and (d) storing, in the one or more storage repositories, the second updated value for the first progressive jackpot; and returning an indication of the second updated value for the first progressive jackpot to the second contributor (e.g., progressive jackpot function in Para. 150 and remote access to progressives in Para. 134).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Link teaches the first unique CID comprises one or more of: a partner ID; game ID; player ID; or an electronic gaming machine (EGM) ID (e.g., identifiers in Para. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Link teaches the first unique CID comprises a concatenation of two or more of: a partner ID; game ID; or a player ID (e.g., identifiers in Para. 21 and tracking commercial activity and preferences in Para. 21 and 104).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Link teaches the first contributor further comprises a contributor type property (e.g., casino property enterprise in Para. 108).
Regarding claim 11, Link teaches the contribution to the first progressive jackpot from the first contributor comprises one or more of: a contribution having a monetary value based on game play by the first contributor (e.g., progressive jackpot operation in at least Para. 31 and 150).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Link teaches the control logic is further configured to perform operations, comprising: (e) receiving a determination to trigger a distribution of the first progressive jackpot to the first contributor; (f) resetting, via the progressive jackpot API, the first progressive jackpot to a default value; and (g) assigning contributions received subsequently to the first contribution to the reset first progressive jackpot (e.g., progressive jackpot win and re-seeding the next jackpot pool in Para. 31, 150, and 158).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-10, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Webb (US 2016/0180647 A1) (henceforth, “Webb”).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 16, and 20, Link although teaching progressive jackpot gameplay (Para. 31), lacks in explicitly teaching the indication of the first contribution to the first progressive jackpot further comprises an indication of a first variation of a first game in which the first contribution was made, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the computer, further cause the computer to perform the following operations: confirming that the first variation of the first game matches with sufficient similarity to stored variation information associated with the first progressive jackpot prior to performing steps (a) and (b). In a related disclosure, Webb teaches processing received interactions in conjunction with a progressive jackpot contest associated with the game and communicating notifications regarding the processing to the contest framework (see abstract). More particularly, Webb teaches the indication of the first contribution to the first progressive jackpot further comprises an indication of a first variation of a first game in which the first contribution was made, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the computer, further cause the computer to perform the following operations: confirming that the first variation of the first game matches with sufficient similarity to stored variation information associated with the first progressive jackpot prior to performing steps (a) and (b) (Para. 159-161). Webb states that “the remote host may dynamically adjust content sent to the gaming machine based upon a group state for a group of gaming machines that the gaming machine is currently not affecting” (Para. 8). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of Link to include the remote gaming features of Webb in order to provide continued gameplay through a connected system, as beneficially taught by Webb.
Regarding claim 9, Link as modified by Webb teaches the first variation comprises an indication of at least one of the following properties of the first game: a reset value of the first progressive jackpot; an increment rate of the first progressive jackpot; a maximum value of the first progressive jackpot; a Return to Player (RTP) percentage; or a jurisdiction (Webb - Para. 159-161).
Regarding claim 10, Link as modified by Webb teaches at least a portion of the first progressive jackpot is configured to expire after a predetermined or configurable interval of inactivity by the first contributor (Webb - e.g., progressive jackpot operation in at least the Abstract, Para. 8, Para. 86, Para. 89, Para. 125, Para. 159-161, and Para. 88, Para. 131, and Para. 133).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Office Action at p. 3 states that the claims recite limitations that can be "practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper." However, the performance of Claim 1 is simply not possible in the human mind or using pen and paper. To wit, the claims recite voluminous specific computer and network components connected and interacting in a specified way, e.g., processors, memory, a hosted gaming service, a progressive jackpot API, and storage repositories. Moreover, the present amendments add further devices and specificity to the claim language, i.e., a "land-based casino device" and an "online player," which refer to different classes of devices and which are located in different environments/ecosystems-but are electronically making contributions to the same progressive jackpot. The human mind cannot perform tasks
such as hosting a server, running an API, storing/retrieving data from storage
repositories, and handling incoming requests transmitted electronically (e.g., over a network) from different classes of devices.”
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, including the land-based casino device and the online player connected with the hosted gaming service, 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.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The Office Action at p. 3 further stats that the claims are considered to recite "fundamental economic principles or practices" and/or to relate to managing personal behavior or relationships. However, as shown in the reproduction of Applicant's Fig. 4
and the description above, the present claims relate to a multi-part technological
ecosystem, involving: a hosted service with an API server, a calculation engine, and storage repositories; land-based casino device(s) with hardware jackpot controllers; as well as various other classes of remote gaming devices configured to interact with the same hosted service as the land-based casino devices. Thus, as may now be appreciated, despite being set in the particular context of the gaming industry, the claims are fundamentally directed to a technological solution to tracking, storing, and synchronizing data across a multimodal or "omnichannel" device ecosystem, wherein multiple devices are connecting and contributing to a common data object (e.g., a progressive jackpot) via a common API.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited above, 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. Such that, the claims, based on receiving a first and second contribution from a first and second contributor and updating/maintaining a progressive jackpot for said contributors, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to 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)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for updating/maintaining/operating a progressive jackpot.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “With regard to Step 2B, discussed at pp. 6-7 of the Office Action, Applicant respectfully asserts that the present amendments do indeed add further additional elements and components to the claims that inarguably take them out of the ream of the
abstract (e.g., both a land-based casino device, as well as a remote gaming system as utilized by an online player). As explained in Section III, below, this was not the type of configuration that was well-known or routine in the prior art.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. "[L]ack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101". (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Therefore, as shown above, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “In summary, the pending claims, as amended, recite the use of a hosted gaming service, a new API, storage repositories, and a novel framework for tracking contributor
identifiers (CIDs) across different devices/gaming environments. This is a technical solution and is implemented with a particular recited arrangement of hardware and software components to solve the technical problem of allowing players to seamlessly engage and/or transition game experiences between different gaming environments. The claims are not directed to a mental process or the rules/instructions for any particular game or game mechanic. They are not fundamental economic practices, because they are, for the first time, enabling the concept of an "omnichannel progressive jackpot," a concept which, previously, was not technically possible.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 a means of maintaining a progressive jackpot via the use of multiple devices (as claimed in amended claims 1, 13, and 17) 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 a singular location when maintaining/operating a progressive jackpot. Managing and maintaining a progressive jackpot as a reward pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 96) does provide support for user engagement, wherein, a personal progressive jackpot may be employed that is tied to a particular player and able to span across multiple games, e.g., so as to entice such players to continue playing games and/or to play games from an iGaming device; however, such disclosure does not relate to the actual improvement of the technology, but rather a means for allowing continued gameplay from a player. 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 1-4, 7-13, and 15-20 are herein maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. As per the amendments to claims 1, 13, and 17, a new prior art rejection has been applied to claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15-20.
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 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