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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated November 25, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated July 25, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-13 are directed to a gaming device (i.e., a machine), claim 14-19 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transient computer-readable storage media (i.e., a manufacture). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a gaming device comprising at least one processor, a memory, and a display device, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
cause the display device to display a base game interface configured to display a base game in a display area;
cause the display device to display, overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, a lobby interface including a figure and a menu, the menu including a plurality of selectable input options relating to the base game;
detect an input of credit to the gaming device by a user;
in response to detecting the input, display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, a first request text prompting the user to select from the plurality of selectable input options;
parse the memory to identify (i) a first request audio file and (ii) a first request video file associated with the displayed first request text, the first request video file including a first request animation of the figure; and
cause the display device to (i) audibly play the first request audio file and (ii) display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, the first request video file including the figure and the first request animation of the figure within the lobby interface.
These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices since it involves the selection of a denomination to be used in a base game. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are at least one processor, a memory, a display device, parse the memory to identify (i) a first request audio file and (ii) a first request video file associated with the displayed first request text, the first request video file including a first request animation of the figure, cause the display device to (i) audibly play the first request audio file and (ii) display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, the first request video file including the figure and the first request animation of the figure within the lobby interface, and a gaming device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional:
at least one processor, a memory, a display device, a gaming device (Bradford et al., US 6,709,333 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown) [C8:7-21])
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely, that the multi-function peripheral device is a peripheral for a gaming machine. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the limitations that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity per the evidence provided below:
parse the memory to identify (i) a first request audio file and (ii) a first request video file associated with the displayed first request text, the first request video file including a first request animation of the figure;
cause the display device to (i) audibly play the first request audio file and (ii) display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, the first request video file including the figure and the first request animation of the figure within the lobby interface
According to MPEP 2106.05(g) courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display is , Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Response [p. 8]). Applicant disagrees with the examiner’s determination that the claims fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (Response [p. 8]). As support applicant quotes from the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum: "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)" (Response [p. 8])
More specifically, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the current claim limitations were considered to involve an exception, these claim limitations do not recite the exception. Rather, the claim limitations recite a system that generates a graphical user interface for improving user accessibility of a gaming device for providing instructions for selection of game-related options to a user by, in response to detecting an input of credit by a player, selecting a figure and accompanying text and/or audio instructions to present via the user interface (Response [p. 9])
The quotation from the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum looked to USPTO examples 39 and 47. The claim limitation in example 39 at issue stated “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set.” The memorandum stated that “even though ‘training the neural network’ involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols” (August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum [p. 3]). In contrast, the limitation from example 47 stated “training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm” (August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum [p. 3]). Whereas example 39 appears to hint at the possibility of a mathematical concept, example 47 clearly stated the mathematical calculations (i.e., the backpropagation algorithm and the gradient descent algorithm).
In the present instance, the limitations explicitly recite input options that may be selected during gameplay. Applicant’s replacement of “denominations” with “input options” does not change the invention. Paragraph [0022] of applicant’s specification states:
The systems and methods described herein include a gaming device, which may include a gaming lobby user interface. Some slot games and other electronic games require a user to select a denomination (e.g., an amount of currency per credit) for placing bets within the game. Because a user that is new to a game may not be familiar with the denomination selection process, the gaming lobby interface may include a figure and a menu including a plurality of selectable denominations. The figure may be an avatar, which may provide guidance and encouragement to a user during a denomination selection process. The figure may include text and/or animations, which may be accompanied by sounds (e.g., so it appears the figure is moving and/or speaking). The figure may be interactive, in that the text, animations, and sounds presented may be determined based on input or lack of input from the user. Accordingly, the game lobby user interface may provide information about denomination selection and/or other game selection processes (e.g., selecting a number of lines on which to bet, etc.) to the user in a way that, compared to traditional user interfaces, is more likely to be noticed and interacted with by the user. Further, by using a combination of text, animation, and sound, users with reduced eyesight and/or hearing may comprehend the user interface more easily.
Furthermore, Figures 4A-4F make it clear that the “input options” are denominations. The examiner interprets this as an explicit recitation of fundamental economic practices rather than hinting at fundamental economic practices. The examiner maintains that the present claims are directed to fundamental economic practices, which is a sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Next, applicant states:
One path to establishing a practical application is to show an improvement to another technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Here, the pending claims are drawn to a practical application that applies any alleged abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged abstract idea. For example, the claims recite a number of additional elements, which are used in the steps recited in the independent claims, and these recitations extend well beyond the scope of any alleged abstract idea. The claims are clearly more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any alleged abstract idea. The present claims do not cover the general concept of game instructions being performed on a machine. Rather, the claims are drawn to a practical application performed on a particular gaming system that does not monopolize all rule- based games being performed on a gaming system. (Response [p. 10])
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
As best understood, applicant appears to argue that the additional elements reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Simultaneously, applicant appears to argue that
First, applicant appears to argue that the claims recite an improvement to another technology. Then applicant seems to suggest that the additional elements apply or use 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.
Applicant further argues that the specification describes a technical problem with existing user interfaces in that the user interfaces that enable a selection of options may not include selectable options that are noticeable and/or are inherently easy to understand by the user (Response [p. 10]). The examiner does not agree that the recited problem is a “technical problem”. There is no technical reason that input options couldn’t be displayed on a display device. At best, the present claims are directed to a business decision as to what input options (i.e., denominations) to display -- not a technical problem.
The combination of the additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant states:
There is no indication in the Office Action that it was well-understood, routine, or conventional to, for example, "cause the display device to display a base game interface configured to display a base game in a display area," "cause the display device to display, overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, a lobby interface including a figure and a menu, the menu including a plurality of selectable input options relating to the base game," "detect an input of credit to the gaming device by a user," "in response to detecting the input, display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, a first request text prompting the user to select from the plurality of selectable input options," "parse the memory to identify (i) a first request audio file and (ii) a first request video file associated with the displayed first request text, the first request video file including a first request animation of the figure," and "cause the display device to (i) audibly play the first request audio file and (ii) display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, the first request video file including the figure and the first request animation of the figure within the lobby interface," as recited in Claim 1.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Rather than showing that the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present, the examiner looks to the additional elements. The additional elements of the present claims are at least one processor, a memory, a display device, parse the memory to identify (i) a first request audio file and (ii) a first request video file associated with the displayed first request text, the first request video file including a first request animation of the figure, cause the display device to (i) audibly play the first request audio file and (ii) display, with the lobby interface overlaid over the base game interface in the display area, the first request video file including the figure and the first request animation of the figure within the lobby interface, and a gaming device.
The newly added claim limitations are part of the abstract idea, not the additional elements. The analysis above provides support that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Finally, applicant states “The fact that the pending claims overcome the prior art strengthens the conclusion that these steps are not well understood, routine, and conventional” (Response [p. .
Per MPEP 2106.05:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack 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 elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the 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. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The examiner maintains that the present claims are not patent eligible.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715