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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received November 24, 2025. Claim(s) 4 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1, 10 and 12 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18232636 filing and priority date 08/10/2023.
Applicant Name/Assignee: IGT
Inventor(s): Hatok, Jennifer; Remus, Kevin
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.07(a) and Berkheimer v HP Inc, arguing that the amended limitation which provide additional elements beyond the abstract idea “responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine prior to any additive manufacture of the asset: disable an additive manufacturing device from receiving any commands from the electronic gaming machine, store the data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured, following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine: enable the additive manufacturing device to receive commands from the electronic gaming machine, load the stored data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured” are not generic, conventional or well-understood. Applicant’s statement is broad and does not explain what technical process in the amended limitations go beyond significantly more than the alleged abstract idea set forth in the previous office action. The limitation “responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine prior to any additive manufacture of the asset: disable an additive manufacturing device from receiving any commands from the electronic gaming machine, …”. The specification and limitations do not recite any technical process with respect to opening an access door upon receipt of data or recite any technical process of how the additive manufacturing device is disabled. The specification discloses para 00190:
[00190] Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security
switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play. These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation, these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations by the EGM software.
The specification discloses monitoring security switches for access violations which can result in the suspension of gameplay and trigger security operations to preserve current state of game play. The specification does not recite a technical process for disabling the additive manufacturing device.
The specification discloses para 00178 use of a timer to provide software failure detection where operating software periodically accesses control triggers to re-trigger the watchdog. The specification states “typical watchdog timer circuits” include loadable timeout registers to enable software to set timeout intervals with a feature of some circuits is that the operating software cannot completely display the watchdog timer”. The specification is silent with respect to technology or technical process applied for the “disabling an additive manufacturing device from receiving any commands”. The limitations themselves recite high level function with expected outcomes and fail to provide any specific unconventional process for disabling additive manufacturing devices. Instead the claim recites the opening of the access door via a monitoring circuit of the gaming device disabling the manufacturing additive device which is high level with an expected outcome and therefore, the disabling operation is so broad as to encompass any known means. With respect to the limitation “store the data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured, following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine: enable the additive manufacturing device to receive commands from the electronic gaming machine, load the stored data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured”. The specification is silent with respect to technology or technical process applied for the “enable the additive manufacturing device to receive commands”. The limitations themselves recite high level function with expected outcomes and fail to provide any specific unconventional process for enabling additive manufacturing devices to receive commands. Instead the claim recites the then enabling as a result of detecting via a monitoring circuit of the gaming device the access door closing which is high level with an expected outcome and therefore, the enabling operation is so broad as to encompass any known means. See update of the rejection below.
In the remarks applicant argues that the additional elements of storing and loading of data is not extra solution activity but rather when in combination with the disabling/enabling the device claimed an additional element. In light of the response to argument 1, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The “receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door” is merely associating data without technical description with the opening of the access door and does not provide any technical details with respect to the disabling of the device claimed. With respect to the limitation “store the data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured, following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine: enable the additive manufacturing device to receive commands from the electronic gaming machine, load the stored data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured”. The data stored and loaded is not part of the enabling process as the data store follows the closing of the access door that enables the device to receive commands. Storing and loading data associated with an asset insignificant extra solution activity.
In the remarks applicant points to MPEP 2106.05(b), arguing the claimed system operates a gaming machine including access door, security monitoring circuit and the additional processes discussed above. Accordingly the claim limitations are necessarily rooted in technology to overcome a problem arising in technology when an access violation of the gaming machine occurs resulting in suspension of the gaming machine operation. The enabling of the suspension of the operation to occur in accordance with security requirements that saves information associated with prior modification of the operations of the gaming machine. Applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. The limitations do not recite any elements with respect to access violations or saving information associated with modifications of operations of gaming machines. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, and amendments with respect the prior art rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 prior art rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 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.
In reference to Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20:
Independent claim 1 recites new matter limitation:
determine, based on an activity that occurred at an electronic gaming machine, data associated with an asset to be additive manufactured, responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine prior to any additive manufacture of the asset:
disable an additive manufacturing device from receiving any commands from the electronic gaming machine, store the data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured, following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine:
The original presentation of the written description possesses and has support for:
[00178] Certain EGMs use a watchdog timer to provide a software failure detection
mechanism. In a normally-operating EGM, the operating software periodically accesses control
registers in the watchdog timer subsystem to "re-trigger" the watchdog. Should the operating
software fail to access the control registers within a preset timeframe, the watchdog timer will
timeout and generate a system reset. Typical watchdog timer circuits include a loadable timeout
counter register to enable the operating software to set the timeout interval within a certain range of
time. A differentiating feature of some circuits is that the operating software cannot completely
disable the function of the watchdog timer. In other words, the watchdog timer always functions
from the time power is applied to the board.
[00190] Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security
switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of
game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play.
These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation,
these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM
can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for
reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations
by the EGM software.
Note there is not support or possession of determining based on activity data associated with an asset and responsive to the data receipt associated with an opening of an access door detected disabling an additive manufacturing device. The specification has support for in response to access violation of doors of the gaming device (egm) the game is suspended, the current state of the game is preserved and the in a power off operation the access doors are monitored and when power restored the gaming device determine security violation while power off. This is not analogous to the claim limitation as the data associated with an asset to be an additive manufacture is not linked in the specification to the determination that an access door of the gaming device is open and specification is silent with respect to storing data associated with the asset following information that the access door is closed. Furthermore, while the specification does have support for suspending the operation of the gaming device or powering off the gaming device when the access door has been opened, the specification is silent with respect to any disabling or enabling of the additive manufacturing device to receive commands based on whether the access door of the gaming device is opened or closed has been detected or data received. Accordingly the limitations below are new matter.
“determine, based on an activity that occurred at an electronic gaming machine, data associated with an asset to be additive manufactured, responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine prior to any additive manufacture of the asset:
disable an additive manufacturing device from receiving any commands from the electronic gaming machine, store the data associated with the asset to be additive manufactured, following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine:
Similar to independent claim 1, independent claims 10 and 12 recite analogous processes which are also therefore, new matter. The dependent claims of claims 1, 10 and 12 contain the same deficiencies as discussed above with respect to their respective independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter.
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 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-3 and 5-9:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such Systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 1 recites functional process (1) determine data associated with an asset to be additive manufacture …(6) cause additive manufacturing device to create additive asset responsive to receiving a command comprising data associated with asset to be additive manufactured (7) display representation of additive manufactured asset (8) responsive to transaction occurring between a first and second user cause modification to accounts of first and second user.
The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to provide in a business environment to provide patrons offering such as loyalty programs, promotions (see background) where when a first user enacts with a gaming device, responsive to a transaction associated with an asset, the participants accounts are modified. The specification discloses fostering a user’s loyalty to a gaming establishment by utilizing additive manufactured assets as a vehicle for the user to remember interactions with the gaming establishment and further enhance gaming establishment brand with the user (para 0064). The specification further discloses suspending machine operations as a security process as a result of access violations where the access door to the machine is detected as open (para 0190) Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction between users where the users accounts are modified (debited/credited) in response to the transaction and providing a printed manufactured object associated with an asset and the gaming machine.
Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions, risk mitigation and sales activity. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executed by the processor, access door of gaming machine, additive manufacturing device, cause the additive manufacturing device to create an additive manufacturing asset, monitoring security circuit of gaming machine, a display device.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “store data…”, “load …stored data…”, “cause display device to display …visual representation…”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim limitations (store data, load data and display visual representation) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “determine …data associated with an asset…”, and “cause modification of first account associated with first user and second account associated with second user” are directed toward process for a transaction activity and not directed toward any technology itself.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “determine …data associated with an asset…”, “disable manufacturing device …”, “enable additive manufacturing machine…” are directed toward activity with respect to an access door of a gaming device being opened. The specification discloses para 0190, that when an access door of a gaming machine is accessed that suspending the operation of the gaming device or powering off the gaming device for incidents such as access violations which result in suspension of game play. The process claimed and the specification does not provide any processes where the disabling or enabling of the asset manufacture device to receive commands is an attempt to improve upon the gaming device or asset manufacture device operations or capability or to provide a solution rooted in the technology itself. Rather is it simply a response to an access door being opened or closed without any technical details as to implementation. Instead focusing of high level functions and expected outcomes.
The additional element “additive manufacturing device” is applied to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations of “determine, based on an activity that occurred at an electronic gaming machine, data associated with an asset to be additive manufactured…” and “cause the additive manufacturing device to create an additive manufactured asset” amount to no more than generally linking the particular technological environment to a judicial exception. The claim states the “marketplace transaction occurring between the first user and a second user in association with the additive manufactured asset and occurring independent of any wagering activity occurring at the electronic gaming machine” causes modifications to a first and second accounts. The abstract idea (the sale of the created asset) is not integrated into a practical application. The claims positively state that the transaction is independent of any wagering activity occurring at the electronic gaming machine. Therefore, the electronic gaming device is merely generally linked to the abstract idea (e.g. sale of the additive manufactured asset). The limitations are not directed toward the additive manufacturing device itself, instead are directed toward the use of the additive manufacturing device in the transaction process.
The processor and its functions are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (transaction between users and modifying user accounts as a result) using a generic system processor. Nothing in the claim limits how the processor causes the modification of accounts, but instead only recites the outcomes expected. There are no details in the specification or claims as to how the modification of accounts are accomplished as a technical process. This is also true with respect to the asset manufacturing device which is merely being applied to print an asset for a transaction.
The combination of parts of the claimed limitations do not cure the issues found in the analysis of the limitations individually. The combination of limitations when considered as a combination or as a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward the abstract concept of a transaction process where accounts are modification responsive to the transaction. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) “ determining data associated with an asset, and disabling a gaming machine when the detecting of the receipt of data is associated with the opening of an access door, the data is stored and the additive manufacturing device is enable following data associated with closing of the data received” is directed toward suspending operations of gaming machines when access doors are opened and enabling the process for the additive manufacturing transaction process when access doors are determined closed where the additive manufacturing process applies the data determined. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) and (5)-(7) is directed toward applying the data determined of limitations (1)-(4) in the creation of the additive asset and displaying the results of the printed asset. The combination of limitations as a whole (1)-(7) and (8) is directed toward completing the transaction of limitations (1)-(7).
Accordingly, the analysis of the claim limitations find that the functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any other indications of patent eligibility. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of a transaction process using a system processor and gaming machine which is a process directed toward a commercial interaction and not the technology itself.
The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to modify accounts in response to a transaction between users and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “modification of a …account” operation is performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executed by the processor, access door of gaming machine, additive manufacturing device, monitoring security circuit of gaming machine, a display device.
The asset manufacturing device creating manufacture asset is operating at a high level in its ordinary capacity. The claimed monitoring circuit is analyzing data for detect access doors as opened lacking technical disclosure.
Whereas the system processor in response to a transaction between parties (asset is sold by one user) such that an account associated with that user is modified accordingly (asset bought by another user) such that an account associated with that user is modified accordingly -see spec para 0072. The architecture of the claimed system is the most basic architecture for computer system (e.g. processor, memory and display device to display data). Therefore, the system components are conventional.
The system therefore and its components -is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a processor, a display device and a memory device storing instructions where the instructions are executed by a processor functions required by the system claims . . . As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the transaction process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. This is also the instant case with respect to the gaming machine as almost every gaming machine comprises a payment acceptor capable of accepting physical items associated with monetary value to modify the credit balance of the gaming machine (token, quarters, dollars, credit card, debit card…). Accordingly the claimed system and gaming machine is generic and conventional.
The limitations with respect to the disabling/enabling of the additive machine are high level and merely dependent upon the monitoring circuit detecting access door opened lacking technical disclosure of the opening of the door or the disabling of the asset manufacturing device or enabling or the enabling of the asset manufacturing device. The specification is equally silent with respect to the enabling/disabling of the asset manufacture device.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer system and other additional elements at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a system processor to cause a display of a device to display data and a processor to modify account responsive to a transaction ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. This is true with respect to the gaming machine, as using a payment acceptor to accept monetary values that credit gaming machine accounts is well known in the art.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
With respect to the system for performing the process, the specification discloses that the system can composes of any suitable combination of a server that is operable to interact with an additive manufacturing device (3D printer). (Spec 0020, para 0046)
The specification discloses that the system enables accounts of participants in the transaction where an asset is sold to one user (account associated with the user is increased) and bought by another user (account associated with the user is decreased) (spec 0072, para 00121).
With respect to the opening of the access doors and the disabling/enabling of the manufacturing device as part of the process the specification is silent.
[00178] Certain EGMs use a watchdog timer to provide a software failure detection
mechanism. In a normally-operating EGM, the operating software periodically accesses control
registers in the watchdog timer subsystem to "re-trigger" the watchdog. Should the operating
software fail to access the control registers within a preset timeframe, the watchdog timer will
timeout and generate a system reset. Typical watchdog timer circuits include a loadable timeout
counter register to enable the operating software to set the timeout interval within a certain range of
time. A differentiating feature of some circuits is that the operating software cannot completely
disable the function of the watchdog timer. In other words, the watchdog timer always functions
from the time power is applied to the board.
[00190] Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security
switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of
game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play.
These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation,
these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM
can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for
reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations
by the EGM software.
The specification only recites outcomes perform by the system and is silent with respect to technical details.
With respect to gaming machines comprising payment acceptors to receive credit value the following evidence is provided:
US Patent No. 10,977,902 B1 by Nottke –“shows a typical electronic video gaming machine 10 that is configured to provide a player apparatus for a poker game such as the method and system of the present invention. The electronic video gaming machine 10 includes a conventional coin acceptor 50 into which the player can insert coins or gaming tokens and a bill acceptor 52 mounted to the gaming machine 10 and into which the player can insert paper currency or cash in (ticket in)—cash out (ticket out) (TITO). The use of coins, tokens, paper currency, or TITO, is one mechanism by which the player may wager on the poker hands the player wishes to play. Also, in the electronic video gaming machine 10, a credit meter display 22 is provided to show the amount of credits that the player has accrued on the gaming machine 10, either by inserting coins, tokens, paper currency, TITO, or from winning plays achieved by the player. Whenever the player makes a wager, the amount of the wager is subtracted from the credit meter display 22. Whenever the player achieves a winning play during the play of the game, the amount of the winning play is added to the credit meter display 22.”-Col 8 lines 4-21); CA 2942412 A1 by Little et al- “For example, bill validators, coin acceptors, card readers, keypads, buttons, levers, touch screens, displays, coin hoppers, player tracking units and the like are examples of hardware that can be coupled to a gaming machine. “(para 0005)…” When the player pushes the bet one button, the number of credits shown in the credit display preferably decreases by one, and the number of credits shown in the bet display preferably increases by one” (para 0313-0314); US Pub No. 2008/0305849 A1 by Okada “in a conventional gaming machine, when a player inserts a game medium such as coin or bill into an insertion slot of the gaming machine” (para 0005)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-3 and 5-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward user selling 3D asset from second user and users account are respectively monetarily modified – transaction process. Dependents claim 3 and 6 are directed toward modified amount of claim 1 as monetary amount- transaction process. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward user buying 3D asset from second user and users account are respectively monetarily modified – transaction process. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward transferring ownership of asset responsive to transaction. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward asset has average expected value- business practice. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward average expected value different from modification of users accounts- business process. The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-3 and 5-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 10-11:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 10 and the dependent claim. Such Systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 10 recites functional process (1) determine data associated with an asset … (7) cause display of visual representation of asset (8) in initial time period enable transaction partially based on first value of 3D asset (9) in second time period enable second transaction to occur associated with a different value of the 3D asset of step 2. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction. The specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to provide in a business environment to provide patrons offering such as loyalty programs, promotions (see background) where when a first user enacts with a gaming device, responsive to a transaction associated with an asset, the participants accounts are modified. The specification discloses fostering a user’s loyalty to a gaming establishment by utilizing additive manufactured assets as a vehicle for the user to remember interactions with the gaming establishment and further enhance gaming establishment brand with the user (para 0064). The specification further discloses suspending machine operations as a security process as a result of access violations where the access door to the machine is detected as open (para 0190). Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 10 focuses on an abstract idea. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction between users where the users accounts are modified. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions, risk mitigation and sales activity. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executed by the processor, access door of gaming machine, additive manufacturing device, monitoring security circuit of gaming machine, a display device.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “store data…”, “load …stored data…”, “cause display device to display …visual representation…”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim limitations (store data, load data and display visual representation) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “determine …data associated with an asset…”, “cause modification of first account associated with first user and second account associated with second user”, “enable transaction to occur in association with additive manufacture asset where the transaction based on part of value of asset”, “enable second transaction to occur based on different value of asst in different time period are directed toward process for a transaction activity and not directed toward any technology itself.
The additional element system processor applied to perform the operation “determine …data associated with an asset…”, “disable manufacturing device …”, “enable additive manufacturing machine…” are directed toward activity with respect to an access door of a gaming device being opened. The specification discloses para 0190, that when an access door of a gaming machine is accessed that suspending the operation of the gaming device or powering off the gaming device for incidents such as access violations which result in suspension of game play. The process claimed and the specification does not provide any processes where the disabling or enabling of the asset manufacture device to receive commands is an attempt to improve upon the gaming device or asset manufacture device operations or capability or to provide a solution rooted in the technology itself. Rather is it simply a response to an access door being opened or closed without any technical details as to implementation. Instead focusing of high level functions and expected outcomes.
The additional element “additive manufacturing device” to perform the operation “create additive manufacture asset”, which is directed toward providing an asset in a transaction process.
The processor and its functions are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (transaction between users and modifying user accounts as a result) using a generic system processor. Nothing in the claim limits how the processor causes the modification of accounts, but instead only recites the outcomes expected. There are no details in the specification or claims as to how the modification of accounts are accomplished as a technical process. This is also true with respect to the asset manufacturing device which is merely being applied to print an asset for a transaction.
The combination of parts of the claimed limitations do not cure the issues found in the analysis of the limitations individually. The combination of limitations when considered as a combination or as a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward the abstract concept of a transaction process where accounts are modification responsive to the transaction. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) “ determining data associated with an asset, and disabling a gaming machine when the detecting of the receipt of data is associated with the opening of an access door, the data is stored and the additive manufacturing device is enable following data associated with closing of the data received” is directed toward suspending operations of gaming machines when access doors are opened and enabling the process for the additive manufacturing transaction process when access doors are determined closed where the additive manufacturing process applies the data determined. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) and (5)-(7) is directed toward applying the data determined of limitations (1)-(4) in the creation of the additive asset and displaying the results of the printed asset. The combination of limitations (1)-(7) and (8)-(9) is directed toward completing the transaction of limitations (1)-(7).
The processor and its functions are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (transaction associated with value of asset) using a generic system. Nothing in the claim limits how the system processor causes enables the transaction. The claim limitations are clearly not directed toward modification of technology or a particular technical process for improving technology, solving a problem rooted in technology or any other indications of patent eligibility under step 2a prong 2, but instead only recites the outcomes expected for a transaction process. There are no details in the specification or claims as to how the modification of claimed enablement of transactions are accomplished as a technical process. When considered as a combination or as a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward the abstract concept of a transaction process at different time periods.
Accordingly, the analysis of the claim limitations find that the functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any other indications of patent eligibility. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of a transaction process which is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to modify accounts in response to a transaction between users and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “modification of a …account” operation is performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim comprise a system comprising a processor and a memory device storing instructions where the instructions are executed by a processor associated with a gaming machine that comprises a payment acceptor and a display device to display data. The system processor executing instructions to determine data associated with an asset which is mere data analysis, disable manufacturing device upon detection of door open without technical details, store data, enable asset manufacturing device to receive commands, cause manufacturing device to create an asset at a high level, display data. The asset manufacturing device creating manufacture asset is operating at a high level in its ordinary capacity. The claimed monitoring circuit is analyzing data for detect access doors as opened lacking technical disclosure. The system processor executing instructions is cited to cause the display device to display data without significantly more that the function of displaying data. The gaming device is cited as capable of modify credit balance of the gaming device when payments are received lacking technical disclosure and failing to provide significantly more than the basic capability of receiving payments and modifying credit balance of the gaming machine. The additional functions of the claimed system is to enable transactions during a first and second time period and display data without significantly more than the performance of a basic transaction process.
The architecture of the claimed system is the most basic architecture for computer system (e.g. processor, memory and display device to display data). Therefore, the system components are conventional. The gaming machine as claimed requires the basic component of a payment acceptor capable of receiving a physical item associated with monetary values- which is one of the most basic components of gaming devices where tangible currencies or transaction token/cards are accepted. The system, gaming device and display device as claimed -is purely functional and generic. Nearly every system will include a processor, a display device and a memory device storing instructions where the instructions are executed by a processor functions required by the system claims . . . As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the transaction process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. This is also the instant case with respect to the gaming machine as almost every gaming machine comprises a payment acceptor capable of accepting physical items associated with monetary value to modify the credit balance of the gaming machine (token, quarters, dollars, credit card, debit card…). Accordingly the claimed system and gaming machine is generic and conventional.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
With respect to the system for performing the process, the specification discloses that the system can composes of any suitable combination of a server that is operable to interact with an additive manufacturing device (3D printer). (Spec 0020, para 0046)
The specification discloses that the system enables accounts of participants in the transaction where an asset is sold to one user (account associated with the user is increased) and bought by another user (account associated with the user is decreased) (spec 0072, para 00121).
[00184] Thus, in at least one embodiment, the EGM 1s configured to store critical information in fault-tolerant memory (e.g., battery-backed RAM devices) using atomic transactions. Further, in at least one embodiment, the fault-tolerant memory is able to successfully complete all desired atomic transactions ( e.g., relating to the storage of EGM critical information) within a time period of 200 milliseconds or less. In at least one embodiment, the time period of 200 milliseconds represents a maximum amount of time for which sufficient power may be available to the various EGM components after a power outage event has occurred at the EGM.
With respect to the opening of the access doors and the disabling/enabling of the manufacturing device as part of the process the specification is silent.
[00178] Certain EGMs use a watchdog timer to provide a software failure detection
mechanism. In a normally-operating EGM, the operating software periodically accesses control
registers in the watchdog timer subsystem to "re-trigger" the watchdog. Should the operating
software fail to access the control registers within a preset timeframe, the watchdog timer will
timeout and generate a system reset. Typical watchdog timer circuits include a loadable timeout
counter register to enable the operating software to set the timeout interval within a certain range of
time. A differentiating feature of some circuits is that the operating software cannot completely
disable the function of the watchdog timer. In other words, the watchdog timer always functions
from the time power is applied to the board.
[00190] Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security
switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of
game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play.
These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation,
these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM
can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for
reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations
by the EGM software.
The specification only recites outcomes perform by the system and is silent with respect to technical details.
The specification only recites outcomes perform by the system and is silent with respect to technical details.
With respect to gaming machines comprising payment acceptors to receive credit value the following evidence is provided:
US Patent No. 10,977,902 B1 by Nottke –“shows a typical electronic video gaming machine 10 that is configured to provide a player apparatus for a poker game such as the method and system of the present invention. The electronic video gaming machine 10 includes a conventional coin acceptor 50 into which the player can insert coins or gaming tokens and a bill acceptor 52 mounted to the gaming machine 10 and into which the player can insert paper currency or cash in (ticket in)—cash out (ticket out) (TITO). The use of coins, tokens, paper currency, or TITO, is one mechanism by which the player may wager on the poker hands the player wishes to play. Also, in the electronic video gaming machine 10, a credit meter display 22 is provided to show the amount of credits that the player has accrued on the gaming machine 10, either by inserting coins, tokens, paper currency, TITO, or from winning plays achieved by the player. Whenever the player makes a wager, the amount of the wager is subtracted from the credit meter display 22. Whenever the player achieves a winning play during the play of the game, the amount of the winning play is added to the credit meter display 22.”-Col 8 lines 4-21); CA 2942412 A1 by Little et al- “For example, bill validators, coin acceptors, card readers, keypads, buttons, levers, touch
screens, displays, coin hoppers, player tracking units and the like are examples of hardware that can be coupled to a gaming machine. “(para 0005)…” When the player pushes the bet one button, the number of credits shown in the credit display preferably
decreases by one, and the number of credits shown in the bet display preferably increases by one” (para 0313-0314); US Pub No. 2008/0305849 A1 by Okada “in a conventional gaming machine, when a player inserts a game medium such as coin or bill into an insertion slot of the gaming machine” (para 0005)
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claim—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claim 11 this dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward assets has average value different from redemption value- a business practice. The remaining dependent claim—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claim 11 the dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claim 11 is directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to claim 12-14 and 16-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 12 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The steps of Method claim 12 corresponds to the functions of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The steps of Method claim 12 corresponds to the functions of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a display device displaying data and a processor causing modifications (debit/credit) to an (respective buyer/seller) account responsive to a transaction–is purely functional and generic. The steps of Method claim 12 corresponds to the functions of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 13-14 and 16-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 12. Dependent claim 13 and 17 are directed toward selling an asset and were the seller and buyer accounts are increased/decreased respectively- transaction process Dependents claim 14 is directed toward modified amount of claim 12 as monetary amount- transaction process. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward user buying 3D asset from second user and users account are respectively monetarily modified – transaction process. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward transferring ownership of asset responsive to transaction. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward asset has average expected value- business practice. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward average expected value different from modification of users accounts- business process. The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory.
In reference to claims 13-14 and 16-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 12. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 12. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 13-14 and 16-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.US Patent No. 12,482,329 B2 by Ensminger et al; US Pub No. 2024/0046755 A1 by Nelson et al; US Pub No. 2023/0351680 A2 by Helfgoff et al; US Pub No. 2021/0012615 A1 by Coppola; US Patent 9,533,526 B1 by Nevins
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 MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695