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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17th, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9-22, and 24-30 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a gaming method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-7, 9-16 and a gaming system (i.e., a machine) in claims 17-22, 24-30.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A gaming method comprising:
at least partially developing executable instructions or computer readable files related to game math for a game chance for a gaming machine using an artificial intelligence game math design system based upon machine learning training including analyzing past game performance from other previously deployed games of chance wherein game of chance development occurs prior to: (i) a first submission of the game of chance to an independent testing laboratory for approval or certification; or (ii) allowing play of the game of chance for real-money play in a regulated gaming environment following approval or certification by the independent testing laboratory, and input past game performance using tiered scales based on importance;
utilizing an artificial general intelligence foundational model and universal translator including at least an input mechanism and media encoding and transcoding router to (i) change input data type to a different media format or consolidate the input data type to a specific file type and (ii) direct the changed or consolidated input data type to a specific neural network in a transformer process and select an output with a highest probability variable wherein the artificial general intelligence foundational model and universal translator is configured to develop its own goal-seeking and reward behavior, gather and/or create training data in real-time, institute its own guardrails and optimization networks, and learn by feeding its output back into the input mechanism to develop the executable instructions or computer readable files related to game math for a game of chance for a gaming machine; and
utilizing the at least partially developed executable instructions or computer readable files to present and allow play of the game of chance for a gaming machine based on the game math, the gaming machine including at least one of a monetary input device configured to receive a physical item associated with a monetary value and/or cashless wagering, a user interface, at least one processor for running the at least partially developed executable instructions or computer readable files related to the game math for the game of chance, a game display and memory in communication with the at least one processor.
1. A gaming method comprising:
at least partially developing executable instructions or computer readable files related to game math for a game chance for a gaming machine using an artificial intelligence game math design system based upon machine learning training including analyzing past game performance; and
utilizing a media encoding and transcoding router to (i) change input data type to a different media format or consolidate the input data type to a specific file type and (ii) direct the changed or consolidated input data type to a specific neural network in a transformer process and select an output with a higher probability variable
utilizing the at least partially developed executable instructions or computer readable files to present and allow play of the game of chance for a gaming machine, the gaming machine including at least one of a monetary input device configured to receive a physical item associated with a monetary value and/or cashless wagering, a user interface, at least one processor for running the at least partially developed executable instructions or computer readable files related to the game math for the game of chance, a game display and memory in communication with the at least one processor.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes involving concepts performable by the human mind including observation, evaluation, and judgement because they set for steps for generating instructions and related game operations based on observation and evaluation of previous game performance as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial or legal interactions involving sales activities and business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships including following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game generation and presentation for play.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above, the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a gaming machine including a monetary input device, a physical item, processor(s), display and memory it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as vending machines, coin operated games, automated teller machines, slot machines, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a gaming machine including a monetary input device, a physical item, processor(s), display and memory amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0060]-[0063], [0118], [0119], [0125], [0138], [0328],[355]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0060]-[0063], [0118], [0119], [0125], [0138], [0328],[355]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-7, 9-22, and 24-30 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a gaming machine, a monetary input device, a physical item, processor(s), display and memory as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas. Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Commencing on pages 1-4 of the Applicant’s above dated response the Applicant presents that the claims as amended have overcome the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more because the claims describe “a multi-component technical pipeline that: uses structured, historical game data to train an AI system prior to certification, routes transformed inputs through transformer-based neural networks, outputs based on probabilistic scoring and certification-bound executable content that may not be altered post-approval” which as particularly claimed demonstrate that the claimed invention is not directed to the abstract idea of generic use of machine learning, nor to the mere automation of a mental task (Applicant’s Remarks Page 3).
Responsive to the preceding, the claimed invention as amended, and including the features describe “a multi-component technical pipeline that: uses structured, historical game data to train an AI system prior to certification, routes transformed inputs through transformer-based neural networks, outputs based on probabilistic scoring and certification-bound executable content that may not be altered post-approval” as particularly claimed are not sufficient to support the presence of significantly more as proposed because it does not result in the improvement to the functioning of a computer such that the computer can perform a function that was not previously performable by the computer and because the execution of the claimed invention included the portions as amended merely utilize the underlying computer/processor as tool, and the courts have noted “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301).
Additionally, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the features Applicant identifies as the inventive concept are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
The Applicant further presents that the recited specific components including (i) a monetary input device (e.g., bill validator, coin acceptor, or cashless wagering system), (ii) a user interface (e.g., touchscreen or physical button panel) and (iii) a game display configured to present the game of chance; (iv) one or more processors configured to execute AI-generated game instructions and (v) memory coupled to the processors tie the invention to more than a general computing environment and as best understood support the presence of a particular machine and by extension a patent eligible practical application of any recited abstract idea (Applicant’s Remarks Page 3-4).
With respect to the above, the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of a particular machine as defined by MPEP §2106.05(b) and although it is performed on a gaming machine including a monetary input device, a physical item, processor(s), display and memory it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as vending machines, coin operated games, automated teller machines, slot machines, and the like.
Additionally, the applicant’s referenced element of a user interface encompasses the virtual interfaces such as GUIs as described in at least paragraphs [0134] & [0151] of the applicant’ specification and accordingly is not limited to the particular hardware elements (e.g., touchscreen or physical button panel) as proposed. Notwithstanding the preceding, a touchscreen or physical button panel are common features in various devices including vending machines, coin operated games, automated teller machines, slot machines, and the like and as such would not support a particular machine as defined by MPEP §2106.05(b) even if considered in combination with the remaining presented additional elements.
The Applicant further proposes that the court’s decision in Video Gaming Technologies Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 2:19-cv-03810 (C.D. Cal. 2020) wherein the court upheld gaming claims in part due to their integration with physical wagering terminals, processors, and display units—unlike abstract software concepts further supports the presence of patent eligible subject matter(Applicant’s Remarks Page 4).
Responsive to the preceding the Applicant cited court decision Video Gaming Technologies Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 2:19-cv-03810 (C.D. Cal. 2020) was not immediately locatable and could not be considered as argued. While a similar court’s decision in Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC (4:17-cv-00454) District Court, N.D. Oklahoma was noted, this decision did not address matters of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Notwithstanding the preceding courts have noted “Realigning and altering the display of symbols on simulated reels is the very essence of the generic slot game.” Konami Gaming Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-01483, 2018 WL 1020120 at *19(D.Nev. 2018), aff’d Appeal No. 2018-1723 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(Fed. Cir. R. 36) and accordingly the implementation of gaming features would not in of itself support the presence of patent eligible subject matter.
The applicant notes that US patent Nos 12,272,207 & 12,412,447 reflect two other allow application in the same family that are believed to reflect similar claim structures to the instant application.
Review of the application files for these two refences did not provide information that would further consideration of subject matter eligibility issues in the instant application.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715