DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended and claim 3 has been previously cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that claims 1-2 and 4-20 rejected under 35 USC 101 are not directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Remarks, pg. 1-5). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they are not directed to a financial instrument designed to mitigate risk or placing an order based on market information but to steps to “change indications on a GUI based on certain triggers in order to directly inform the user of progress/happenings within the GUI” and inform a user of progress in a particular scenario; ii) the claims distinguish from In re Smith and In re Marco because they are directed to controlling “a GUI to display indications based on certain conditions/triggers” which are not analogous to instructions for playing a dice game and/or a set of rules for playing a game (see Remarks, pg. 2-3); iii) the claims are analogous to Example 23 for “displaying windows and relocating information within the displayed windows” because they recite a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces by “displaying numbers and indications on one or more GUIs to improve a user’s understanding of items on the GUI” (see Remarks, pg. 3-4); and iv) the claims are analogous to the issue in Ex Parte Desjardins because the claims inform the user of “happenings within an electronic game to provide an improvement to the field of electronic gaming” and adding excitement to the user experience (see Remarks, pg. 5). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to “change indications on a GUI based on certain triggers in order to directly inform the user of progress/happenings within the GUI”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The referenced “progress/happenings” were found to recite steps and/or instructions for managing a bonus game during the play of a wagering game (see Specification, 0004) which is analogous to managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions. While it is acknowledged that the claims further recite additional elements directed to “change indications on a GUI” based upon rules and/or instructions for managing the game, these steps are found to amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which was not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are distinguished from In re Smith and In re Marco because they are not analogous to playing a dice game and/or a set of rules for playing a game. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In re Smith and In re Marco, while being directed to different games, indicated that rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. As noted above, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a bonus game during the play of a wagering game which is analogous to courts decisions of In re Smith and In re Marco. Furthermore, as noted above, the additional limitations directed to “change indications on a GUI” are directed to displaying the progress of the bonus game which amounts to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
With respect to the third argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are similar to Example 23 because they recite steps that improve a GUI by “displaying numbers and indications on one or more GUIs to improve a user’s understanding of items on the GUI”. Specifically, as argued by the Applicant’s representative, the claims are directed to displaying the “number and indications on one or more GUIs to improve a user’s understanding of items on the GUI” (see Remarks, pg. 4). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to Example 23, the claims of the instant application recite steps for arrange transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assist the player in processing the progress of the game which is analogous to what the courts have indicated does not show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a) I – citing to viii – Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94). It follows that these additional limitations directed that manage the display of numbers and indications associated with the bonus game are not found to indicate an improvement to the functioning of the computer and/or to a different field that would integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the analysis has been maintained in the action below.
With respect to the fourth argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter because similar to Ex Parte Desjardins the claims reflect an improvement to technology in the field of electronic gaming by adding excitement to the user experience. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the sections above, the steps to display the “number and indications” of the bonus game are found to merely arrangement transactional information which is not indicative of an improvement to computer functionality. Additionally, adding excitement to the user experience, in the context of managing a bonus wagering game, is not found to recite a technical improvement to a technical problem. At best increasing player excitement amounts to a business consideration of the method or to the certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., instructions for the bonus game) which does not integrate the claim into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more. It follows that the display of the “number and indications” by the GUI were found to recite steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A game controller for a plurality of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
control, based on number selections from a plurality of available numbers from a plurality of eligible players at the plurality of EGMs, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of each EGM to display the selected number associated with the respective player during play of a wagering game; -certain method of organizing human activity;
control, in response to play of a wagering game by a particular player failing to reach a predetermined threshold, the GUI of each EGM to display a first indication associated with removal of the particular player from the plurality of eligible players; -certain method of organizing human activity;
control, in response to a player from the plurality of eligible players being selected for a bonus game award during the wagering game, the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display a second indication to show that the selected player was selected for the bonus game award; and -certain method of organizing human activity;
control the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display a third indication to show an amount awarded to the selected player by the bonus game award. – certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are each found to a certain method of organizing human activity which are analogous to managing a bonus game of a wagering game including rules and/or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining limitations such as: “a processor circuit;” “a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:” “a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of each EGM to display the selected number” “the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display a second indication”, control the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display a third indication” recite steps that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., limitations directed to displaying the bonus game), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements of the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: a system comprising “a processor circuit”, “a memory coupled to the processor circuit”, and “a plurality of gaming devices” and the GUI of the display device to display information associated with the respective player during play of a wagering game when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are found to recite highly generalized computer components that are invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a processor, memory, and a display device and a communication network to communicate with a server and/or other gaming machine terminals to display progress of a game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recited to implement the steps and/or rules for managing the wagering game are not found to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. It follows that the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 13 and 19, the limitations are found to recite substantially the same subject matter but differ in that they are directed to the corresponding Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) of independent Claim 13 and method embodiment of independent Claim 19. Independent Claim 13 recites differences such as “in response to play of the wagering game by a particular player reaching a predetermined threshold, adding the particular player to a plurality of eligible players” which is analogous to a rule and/or instruction for managing a bonus game of the wagering game. Independent Claim 19 recites differences such as: “wherein each number of a first subset of the plurality of available numbers comprises a first expected value and each number of a second subset of the plurality of available numbers comprises a second expected value lower than the first expected value” which recites rule and/or instructions for managing the bonus game of the wagering game. However, these differences do not change the findings of the analysis directed to independent claim 1 above because additional steps and/or instructions directed a certain method of organizing human activity do not integrate the claim into a practical application. It follows, that for substantially the same reasons as independent claim 1, the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20, the limitations have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to further recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-2, and 4-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights