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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-8 recite a slot machine interface board comprising:
an interface;
a slot machine interface board processor;
a slot machine interface board housing supportable 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, cause the slot machine interface board processor to:
receive, from an image capture device, captured data associated with an image of a user,
responsive to a streaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine, communicate the captured data to a live streaming platform server, and
independent of any streaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine and responsive to an occurrence of a user identification event:
communicate, via the interface and to a component of a responsible gaming system, the captured data associated with the image of the user, and
responsive to a receipt, via the interface and from the component of the responsible gaming system, of data associated with a determination that the captured data associated with the image of the user corresponds to stored data associated with an image of an individual that has reached a responsible gaming limit, communicate a command to a processor of the electronic gaming machine that causes the processor of the electronic gaming machine to modify an operation of the electronic gaming machine.
Claims 9-12 recite, a slot machine interface board comprising:
an interface;
a slot machine interface board processor; 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:
obtain first biometric data of a user at an electronic gaming machine in communication with the slot machine interface board processor,
responsive to a streaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine, communicate the first biometric data to a live streaming platform server, and
independent of any streaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine and responsive to an occurrence of a user identification event:
communicate, via the interface and to a component of a responsible gaming system, the first biometric data, and
responsive to a receipt, via the interface and from the component of the responsible gaming system, of data associated with a determination that the first biometric data corresponds to second biometric data of an individual associated with restricted access to the electronic gaming machine based on that individual having reached a responsible gaming limit tracked by the component of the responsible gaming system, communicate a command to a processor of the electronic gaming machine that causes the processor of the electronic gaming machine to modify an operation of the electronic gaming machine.
Claims 13-20 recite, a method of operating a slot machine interface board, the method comprising:
receiving, from an image capture device, captured data associated with an image of a user,
responsive to a streaming session occurring at an electronic gaming machine associated with the slot machine interface board, communicating the captured data to a live streaming platform server, and
independent of any streaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine and responsive to an occurrence of a user identification event:
communicating, via an interface and to a component of a responsible gaming system, the captured data associated with the image of the user, and
responsive to a receipt, via the interface and from the component of the responsible gaming system, of data associated with a determination that the captured data associated with the image of the user corresponds to stored data associated with an image of an individual that has reached a responsible gaming limit, communicating a command to a processor of the electronic gaming machine that causes the processor of the electronic gaming machine to modify an operation of the electronic gaming machine.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim recite steps of communicating data of a user and communicating data that the user reached a responsible gaming limit to modifying a game/gaming machine. Limitations a user game play by communicating data about the user to modify a gaming machine is a management of a social activity and therefore an organization of human activity.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of, receiving, from an image capture device, captured data associated with an image of a user, or obtaining first biometric data of a user at an electronic gaming machine in communication with the processor, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, communicating captured data, or biometric data to a live streaming platform server, amount to data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of, a slot machine interface board comprising an a slot machine interface, a slot machine interface processor, a slot machine interface board housing and a memory device are directed to a generic gaming components used to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1, 9, 13 recite a slot machine interface board. A slot machine interface board is known in the art. Olsen (US2001/0004607) discloses that it is well known and conventional for slot machines to communicate using a slot machine interface board (paragraphs 171-174, Fig. 13). The slot machine interface board comprises an interface, a processor and a memory (paragraphs 171-174, Fig. 13).
In addition, the interface, processor and memory are generic gaming/computer components used to communicate data. The steps of communicating, transmitting data is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-20 further recite communicating data of a user and communicating data that the user reached a responsible gaming limit to modifying a game/gaming machine. The claims further recites an organization of human activity. The claim elements in the claims considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s Specification fails to teach, “a slot machine interface board housing supportable by a housing of an electronic gaming machine”. There is no description a slot machine interface board housing. There no description describing the structure of the slot machine interface board housing and how it is supported by the housing of an electronic gaming machine.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Prior Art Rejection
The prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
35 USC 112
The prior rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn. New rejection under 35 USC 112 1st/a has been made to address the amended limitations.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides a solution with to the recognized problem with prior attempts to circumvent certain responsible gaming mandates. The machine interface board in communication with an electronic gaming machine offers enhanced enforcement of responsible gaming limits in a way not previously achievable by electronic gaming machines themselves. More specifically, the utilization of a slot machine interface board independently operating with a responsible gaming system to verify, based on captured image data of a user relative to stored image data of a user known to have reached a responsible gaming limit, and, if warranted, cause a modification of an operation of the electronic gaming machine offers a technical solution not previously available due to operational limitations of electronic gaming machines. Such a configuration of utilizing a slot machine interface board to both provide image data to a live streaming platform server (to form supplemental content of a live stream) and also determine whether a user at an electronic gaming machine qualifies as a user known to have reached a responsible gaming limit and if so, modifying an operation of the electronic gaming machine combats certain identified attempts to bypass responsible gaming limits.
However, the step of modifying a gaming machine or game play to enforce responsible gaming is an abstract idea. The machine interface boards is a generic peripheral computer device used to implement the abstract idea electronically. In addition, the step of transmitting live streaming data is step of transmitting data to implement to abstract idea electronically.
Applicant argues that the claims recite additional element of communication with a live streaming platform server and a component of a responsible gaming system. As such, the claim offers a technically improved way to modify an electronic gaming machine. However, the steps of communicating, transmitting data is well known, routine and conventional. There is no improvement to a technology. The claims recite generic computer components to implement the abstract idea electronically.
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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715