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 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.
Claim 17 is under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites using a generic well-known machine learning algorithm in a new data environment without improving the machine learning process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include an element or combination of elements that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible matter. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In the instant application, the claim is directed to using a generic machine learning algorithm, i.e., training a natural language model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not improve the machine learning process. Outside of the language of training a natural language model, without clarification on the model or the particulars of its use, it must be assumed that it is a generic machine learning algorithm implemented on a computer.
The courts have stated that claims directed to the use of machine learning in a new environment that do not improve the machine learning technology is not patent-eligible. The courts have further stated that “the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficient than could previously be achieved.” See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13,16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lark et al (US 2002/0142825) in view of Kuhn (US2010/0121808).
Re claim 1, Lark discloses a system comprising: a processor and memory (fig. 4, par. [0090], gaming machine contains a master gaming controller and storage device) causing the processor to: receive, from a gaming system, an audio stream comprising a natural language description of an electronic game of chance ([0132], a speech recognition interface is considered a natural language description as it receives natural language information from the player); extract, from the received audio stream, a set of parameters for the electronic game of chance based on the received audio stream ([0132], [0136], and [0154], the player changes the configuration of the game with the speech recognition interface); generate a set of configuration information defining the electronic game of chance based on the extracted set of parameters for the electronic game of chance (see fig. 1A for example parameters for the game of chance); create the electronic game of chance based on the generated set of configuration information (fig. 6, 625); and provide, to the gaming system, the generated set of configuration information defining the electronic game of chance (fig. 6 illustrating the flow of receiving parameters, configuring the game, and executing the game with the preferences).
However, while Lark discloses speech recognition, there is no explicit disclosure that natural language processing is performed on the audio stream. Kuhn teaches a game of chance with speech recognition similar to Lark, wherein the system utilizes a natural language processor ([0033] and fig. 6, 628). The natural language processing enables the system to emulate authentically human behavior and ease interactions between the player and the system. It would have been obvious to implement natural language processing as taught by Kuhn with the gaming system of Lark in order to enable players to naturally interact with the gaming machine with their voice to configure and play the game with their preferences, communicated via natural speech.
Re claims 2-3, Lark discloses various configuration options for games (see fig. 1A), but does not necessarily disclose restrictions. While determining the preferred game type, wager amounts, and other settings could be considered restrictions, for the purposes of clarity, Kuhn is referenced to teach configuration information based on a set of restrictions placed on the electronic game of chance ([0053] and [0083], local legal jurisdictions determine certain configurations available to the player, wherein legal jurisdictions are considered regulatory restrictions).
Re claim 4, Kuhn teaches determining a geographic location of the gaming system and wherein the set of regulatory restrictions are selected based on the determined geographic location of the gaming system ([0024], the system utilizes geographical monikers and tracks the location of the player to change game parameters, such as speech patterns or referencing gaming sessions at previous locations).
Re claim 5, Kuhn teaches restrictions on a game type ([0053], legal jurisdictions determine whether the game may operate in an autoplay mode, which is considered a game type).
Re claim 7, Lark discloses the set of restrictions comprise restrictions defined by an operator of the gaming system (fig. 6, the preferences are associated with the player, the player being the operator of the gaming system).
Re claim 8, Lark discloses restrictions defined by a manufacturer of the gaming system (fig. 1A illustrating manufacturer-defined restrictions).
Re claims 9 and 16, see the rejection to claim 1.
Re claim 10, Lark discloses the configuring is performed in real-time upon initiation of the electronic game of chance (fig. 6).
Re claim 11, Lark discloses changing the game of chance after conducting the electronic game of chance for a period of time (since the claim fails to specify a period of time, Lark discloses the limitation as the game is configured with the desired parameters when the preferences are loaded immediately).
Re claim 12, Lark discloses a sub-game conducted within the electronic game of chance (fig. 1A, 62 and [0059], the game includes multiple bonus games which are considered sub-games).
Re claim 13, Lark discloses a request for confirmation of the extracted set of parameters for the electronic game of chance ([0090]).
Re claim 19, Lark discloses providing the generated set of configuration information defining the electronic game of chance to a plurality of players in an online community ([0048] and [0127]).
Re claim 20, Lark discloses learning preferences for a player ([0011]). Kuhn has been discussed above regarding natural language.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lark in view of Kuhn as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schneier et al (US 2003/0054879).
Re claim 6, Lark and Kuhn are silent on restrictions on a random number generator used by the electronic game of chance. Schneier teaches an electronic game of chance wherein the range of random numbers used may be restricted to a range ([0145]). It would have been obvious to control the range of random numbers in a game as taught by Schneier in order to allow the casino to control the odds of their games to their desired parameters.
Re claim 18, Lark discloses storing data associated with players on a server (fig. 2, 101). Schneier teaches storing a player’s voice-print in a database ([0122]).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lark in view of Kuhn as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lutnick et al (US 2008/0167106).
Re claim 14, Lark and Kuhn do not disclose sending an electronic message requesting additional description of the electronic game of chance. Lutnick teaches a game where players can request additional information on a promotion for a game ([0315] to [0320], the promotion involving modification of the game). It would have been obvious to implement the messaging system of Lutnick with the game of Lark and Kuhn in order to allow players to be fully informed about the games being played.
Re claim 15, see the rejection to claim 14. Information about a promotion or game rules is considered an explanation of the game of chance.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lark in view of Kuhn as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sarikaya et al (US 2014/0278355).
Re claim 17, Lark and Kuhn do not disclose training a natural language model on a voice of the player. Sarikaya teaches a natural language understanding system wherein machine learning techniques are used to train the model ([0011], [0013], and [0040]). It would have been obvious to implement and train a model as taught by Sarikaya with the speech recognition and natural language processing of Lark and Kuhn in order to improve the accuracy and efficacy of the speech recognition systems, ensuring that the player’s voice requests are properly interpreted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejection, the eligibility of claim 16 has no bearing on the eligibility of claim 17, as claim 17 is the claim that contains ineligible subject matter. Since Applicant has not addressed the eligibility of claim 17, the rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Lark does not create an electronic game of chance based on a generated set of game configuration information as recited in the claims. However, as figure 6 of Lark clearly teaches, Lark allows players to configure a gaming machine with player preferences based on generated configuration information (605, 610, 615, and 620), then executing game play with those selected preferences (625), therefore creating an electronic game of chance based on the generated set of configuration information.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715