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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of a system as claimed, including receiving, from a gaming system, an audio stream comprising a natural language description of a new electronic game of chance not available on the gaming system. Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/26 regarding the prior art are persuasive and newly amended claims 1, 9, and 16 now disclose the natural language description being of a new electronic game of chance not available on the gaming system which differs from the teachings of the cited prior art which are directed to new configurations of games that are already present on the gaming systems.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 regarding claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has mistakenly interpreted claim 16’s lack of ineligibility to mean that any and all claims dependent on claim 16 are therefore eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as such logic would lead to any and all ineligible claims to be considered eligible simply for being dependent on an eligible claim.
In the instant case, while claim 16 is not ineligible, it does not introduce any elements that would be considered significantly more than an abstract idea, as claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor. Such limitations amount to appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, which, as noted in the MPEP § 2106.05, is not enough to qualify as significantly more. Since claim 16 does not itself include any judicial exceptions, this is a non-issue. However, as claim 17 introduces a judicial exception, it is analyzed together with the elements of claim 16. As such, applicant’s arguments that claim 17 must include significantly more than the abstract idea is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights