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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of Claims 1-2 and 4-20 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the amended claims under the two-part Alice framework are i) not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 7-10); ii) recite a “game controller” for a plurality of “EGMs” that “control[s] a Graphical User Interface (GUI)” which is eligible under prong 2A (see Remarks, pg. 10); iii) are analogous to Claims 1 and 2 of Example 37 of the 2019 PEG to satisfy Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 10); and iv) are novel and non-obvious over the prior art, which is further evidence that the claimed subject matter is directed to an eligible inventive concept (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). 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 judicial exception but “a specialized game controller of an EGM that performs a detailed set of operations that, taken as a whole, describe a game mechanic for a bonus game at the EGM” (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims recite a set of operations that describe a game mechanic for a bonus wagering game which is analogous to managing a wagering game. As indicated by the courts, managing a wagering game is a fundamental economic activity that analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the newly amended limitation “in response to play of a wagering game by a particular player failing to reach a predetermined threshold, remove the player from the plurality of eligible player” when viewed individually is a rule and/or instruction for a wagering game and when viewed in combination as a whole amounts to a set of rules and/or instructions for managing the wagering game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
Moreover, the Applicant’s assertion that the amended which recite “a specialized game controller of an EGM” renders the claim eligible under prong 2A is not persuasive. A review of the Specification indicates that “a game controller” for a plurality of EGMs may be “any suitable server or computing device” which is invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea and conveys the highly-generalized and commercial nature of the claimed system that amounts to providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h) see Specification, 0017, 0079). For at least this reason, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A has been maintained below.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims have been amended to recite a “game controller” for a plurality of “EGMs” that “control[s] a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is directed to an improved user interface similar to Core Wireless (see Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner Respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a wagering game. The additional elements such as “game controller” for a plurality of “EGMs” that controls a GUI recite steps that merely invoke a display to arrange transactional information of the game that amounts to in a manner that assist the player to process the progress of the game. This is analogous to examples that the courts have indicated is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a) – viii. – citing to Trading Technologies v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94). Furthermore, this is supported by the lack of disclosure in the Specification to indicate a technical solution to a technical problem addressed by the claimed graphical user interface. It follows that the claims are viewed as a whole, amount to mere instructions to apply an exception because the additional elements are invoked to perform a commonplace business method being applied on a conventional EGM that is analogous to the courts findings in Alice v. CLS. It follows that the limitations that recite a “game controller” for a plurality of “EGMs” that “control[s] a Graphical User Interface (GUI)” does not integrate the claim into a practical application but recite additional elements that 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, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection and analysis has been maintained below.
With respect to the third argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims amount to significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite steps and/or instructions for managing a wagering bonus game. The additional elements as noted above are not indicative of an improvement to computer functionality and/or an improvement to a different technology or field. Stated differently, the limitations of the claims when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are found 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that they are not found to be sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Additionally, the Applicant’s representative maintains that that the claims are analogous to Claims 1-2 of Example 37 in the 2019 PEG. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application is directed to managing a wagering bonus game which is a certain method of organizing human activity. Furthermore, the Claims lack do not determine the “most used icons” to position them closest to the start position which was found to integrate a mental process into a practical application. In contrast, the claims merely recite invoking an EGM that utilizes conventional components and technique that amount to mere instructions to invoking a computer to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the fourth argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that because the claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art they are directed to an eligible inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Issues under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are evaluated separately from the subject matter eligibility requirement under 35 USC 101. As has been established above, the claims recite rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game which is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more but mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool, 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 at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has bene 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:
receive, from a plurality of eligible players at the plurality of EGMs, a plurality of number selections from a plurality of available numbers – certain method of organizing human activity;
control a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of each EGM to display, the selected number associated with the respective player during play of a wagering game;
in response to play of a wagering game by a particular player failing to reach a predetermined threshold, remove the particular player from the plurality of eligible players; -certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to an operator of the wagering game initiating a bonus game, select a player of the plurality of eligible players to receive a bonus game award – certain method of organizing human activity;
control the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display an indication at the wagering game of the selected player, the indication associating the selected number associated with the respective player with the bonus game award; and
award the bonus game award by the EGM associated with the selected player – 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 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:” “from a plurality of eligible players at the plurality of EGMs,” “control a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of each EGM to display, the selected number associated with the respective player during play of a wagering game;” and “control the GUI of the EGM associated with the selected player to display an indication at the wagering game of the selected player, the indication associating the selected number associated with the respective player with the bonus game award;” and “by the EGM associated with the selected player” recite steps that 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, 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” 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 and a communication network to communicate with a server and/or other gaming machine terminals (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 a wagering game by a particular player reaching a predetermined threshold, add the particular player to the plurality of eligible players” which is a rule and/or instruction for managing a 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 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 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent Claim 1, recites at “during play of a wagering game” in lines 9-10, “in response to play of a wagering game” in line 11; and “in response to an operator of the wagering game” in line 14. The limitation “in response to play of a wagering game” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite as to whether “a wagering game” in line 14 is the same and/or different play of a wagering game recited in line 11. Furthermore, the limitation “an operator of the wagering game” is rendered unclear as to whether “an operator” is in the same wagering game as recited in line 11 or “a wagering game” recited in line 14. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 1 is found to be indefinite. Dependent claims 2 and 4-12 which are dependent upon the limitation discussed above are indefinite for substantially the same reasons as they incorporate the limitations of independent Claim 1 from which they depend.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation at lines 2-3, “in response to play of a wagering game by a particular player reaching a predetermined threshold” renders the claim unclear as to whether “a play of a wagering game by a particular player” is the same and/or different as “a wagering game” recited in lines 9-10 and “a wagering game by a particular player” of line 14 recited by independent Claim 1 from which it depends.
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