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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated June 3, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 4, 2025. Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-3 are directed to a table game system (i.e., a machine), claims 8-10 are directed to a gaming table display assembly (i.e., a machine), and claims 15-17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a table game system, comprising:
a physical gaming table including a plurality of bet sensors configured to detect a presence of physical betting chips being placed within wager areas;
a card reader device configured to acquire information from a physical playing card being dealt onto the physical gaming table;
a dealer terminal including a touchscreen display device; and
a gaming table display assembly coupled to the physical gaming table, the gaming table display assembly including:
a display unit for displaying computer-generated images;
a random number generator;
a memory device storing an award boost data file including a plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award indicators associated with fixed-pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator associated with a baseline award value indicator, a plurality of boosted award values, and selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values; and
a gaming controller operably coupled to the display unit and, the card reader device, and the memory device, the gaming controller including a processor programmed to execute an algorithm to render an animated sequence of computer-generated images of a bonus progressive card game on the display unit including the steps of:
rendering a game screen on the display unit including an animated progressive jackpot award image and an animated progressive award paytable image;
rendering the animated progressive award paytable image including a plurality of fixed- pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award image including a card hand image indicating a corresponding playing card hand and a modifiable bonus award image;
determining a placement of a physical betting chip being placed within a corresponding wager area upon receiving a signal from a corresponding bet sensor, and responsively displaying a notification message on the dealer terminal including a start button prompting a dealer to initiate the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game; and
rendering the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game on the game screen upon detecting a dealer's selection of the start button by:
receiving a signal from the card reader device indicating card values associated with physical playing cards dealt to a player and [[a]] the dealer; and
initiating an instance of a bonus progressive card game by:
determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified by:
randomly selecting the fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified from the plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award images being displayed on the animated progressive award paytable image using the random number generator;
randomly selecting an award boost value for the randomly selected fixed-pay hand bonus award image;
accessing the award boost data file and determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator matching the randomly selected fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified; and
randomly selecting a boosted award value from the plurality of boosted award values associated with the determined fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator based on the selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values;
animating the modifiable bonus award image associated with the randomly selected fixed- pay hand bonus award image to transform from an initial baseline award value to the randomly selected boosted award value;
determining a player bonus hand based on the card values associated with two playing cards dealt to the player and one playing card dealt to the dealer; and
animating an award image onto the game screen upon determining the player bonus hand matches one of the fixed-pay hand bonus award images.
Claim 8 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a gaming table display assembly for use with a table game system including a physical gaming table including a plurality of bet sensors configured to detect a presence of physical betting chips being placed within wager areas, a card reader device configured to acquire information from a physical playing card being dealt onto the physical gaming table, and a dealer terminal including a touchscreen display device, the gaming table display assembly comprising:
a display unit for displaying computer-generated images;
a random number generator;
a memory device storing an award boost data file including a plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award indicators associated with fixed-pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator associated with a baseline award value indicator, a plurality of boosted award values, and selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values; and
a gaming controller operably coupled to the display unit, the gaming controller including a processor programmed to execute an algorithm to render an animated sequence of computer-generated images of a bonus progressive card game on the display unit including the steps of:
rendering a game screen on the display unit including an animated progressive jackpot award image and an animated progressive award paytable image;
rendering the animated progressive award paytable image including a plurality of fixed- pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award image including a card hand image indicating a corresponding playing card hand and a modifiable bonus award image;
determining a placement of a physical betting chip being placed within a corresponding wager area upon receiving a signal from a corresponding bet sensor, and responsively displaying a notification message on the dealer terminal including a start button prompting a dealer to initiate the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game; and
rendering the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game on the game screen upon detecting a dealer's selection of the start button by:
receiving a signal from the card reader device indicating card values associated with physical playing cards dealt to a player and the dealer;
determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified by:
randomly selecting the fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified from the plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award images being displayed on the animated progressive award paytable image using the random number generator;
accessing the award boost data file and determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator matching the randomly selected fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified; and
randomly selecting a boosted award value from the plurality of boosted award values associated with the determined fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator based on the selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values;
animating the modifiable bonus award image associated with the randomly selected fixed-pay hand bonus award image to transform from an initial baseline award value to the randomly selected boosted award value;
determining a player bonus hand based on the card values associated with two playing cards dealt to the player and one playing card dealt to the dealer; and
animating an award image onto the game screen upon determining the player bonus hand matches one of the fixed-pay hand bonus award images.
Claim 15 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method of operating a gaming table display assembly for use with a table game system including a physical gaming table including a plurality of bet sensors configured to detect a presence of physical betting chips being placed within wager areas, a card reader device configured to acquire information from a physical playing card being dealt onto the physical gaming table, and a dealer terminal including a touchscreen display device, the gaming table display assembly including a display unit for displaying computer-generated images, a random number generator, a memory device storing an award boost data file including a plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award indicators associated with fixed-pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator associated with a baseline award value indicator, a plurality of boosted award values, and selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values, and a gaming controller including a processor operably coupled to the display unit, the method including the processor performing an algorithm to render an animated sequence of computer- generated images of a bonus progressive card game on the display unit including the steps of:
rendering a game screen on the display unit including an animated progressive jackpot award image and an animated progressive award paytable image;
rendering the animated progressive award paytable image including a plurality of fixed- pay hand bonus award images, each fixed-pay hand bonus award image including a card hand image indicating a corresponding playing card hand and a modifiable bonus award image;
determining a placement of a physical betting chip being placed within a corresponding wager area upon receiving a signal from a corresponding bet sensor, and responsively displaying a notification message on the dealer terminal including a start button prompting a dealer to initiate the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game; and
rendering the animated sequence of the bonus progressive card game on the game screen upon detecting a dealer's selection of the start button by:
receiving a signal from the card reader device indicating card values associated with physical playing cards dealt to a player and the dealer; and
determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified by:
randomly selecting the fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified from the plurality of fixed-pay hand bonus award images being displayed on the animated progressive award paytable image using the random number generator;
accessing the award boost data file and determining a fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator matching the randomly selected fixed-pay hand bonus award image to be modified; and
randomly selecting a boosted award value from the plurality of boosted award values associated with the determined fixed-pay hand bonus award indicator based on the selection probabilities associated with each of the plurality of boosted award values;
animating the modifiable bonus award image associated with the randomly selected fixed- pay hand bonus award image to transform from an initial baseline award value to the randomly selected boosted award value;
determining a player bonus hand based on the card values associated with two playing cards dealt to the player and one playing card dealt to the dealer; and
animating an award image onto the game screen upon determining the player bonus hand matches one of the fixed-pay hand bonus award images.
The present claims are directed to a table game for carrying out a wagering game. The limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, a wagering game is considered a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Rules of a game also fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The limitations also fall into the category of mental processes because the determining steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a physical gaming table, bet sensors, a card reader device, a physical playing card, a gaming table assembly, a display unit, a gaming controller, a processor, a dealer terminal, a touchscreen display device, a bet sensor, a wager area, a physical betting chip, a dealer terminal touchscreen, a random number generator, and a memory device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a physical gaming table, a gaming controller, a processor (Walker et al., US 2003/0218303 A1,. well-known examples of gaming devices include, without limitation, video poker machines, video blackjack machines, mechanical slot machines, video slot machines, video keno machines, video bingo machines, pachinko machines, and video lottery terminals; other well-known examples of gaming devices include, without limitation: table controllers, such as the table controller 92 (FIG. 5); game tables, such as virtual Blackjack table 150 (FIG. 9); and player terminals, such as those described in implementing virtual Blackjack table 150 (FIG. 9) [0176])
a card reader device, a physical playing card (Merati, US 9,092,935 B2, the electronic card reader may be incorporated into a "shoe", which is a common apparatus in casinos for housing one or more decks of physical playing cards [C5:39-60]),
a bet sensor (Ventura et al., US 2016/0243433 A1, it will be appreciated the gaming table might have other configuration, such as including other features (RFID chip tracking, electronic card identification, player tracking, etc.), as is well known in the art [0044]),
a wager area, (Hill, US 2013/0196777 A1, in one aspect, intelligent gaming table 205 includes conventional features of a Big Baccarat gaming table, such as … individual betting areas 250 (which may have specific areas to place different bets) [0040])
a physical betting chip, (Walker at al., US 2010/0244380 A1, once the dealer is accepting wagers, the player may place a primary wager (block 102) by placing one or more chips in the primary betting circle 28 as is well understood [0026])
a gaming table display assembly, a display unit, a dealer terminal, a touchscreen display device, a dealer terminal touchscreen (Merati, US 2013/0079147 A1, dealer interface 118 comprises an electronic device that allows a dealer at location 102 to communicate with gaming sever 108; it typically comprises one or more well-known techniques to provide information to, or receive information from, server 108, such as a touchscreen computer, smartphone, keyboard, keypad, display device, microphone, etc. [0042]), and
a random number generator (Orselli et al., US 5,540,442, electronic random number generators and associated circuitry for displaying the numbers on a visible display are well-known, and any suitable generator and display can be used [C4:41-C5:19]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
The closest prior art of record includes LaDuca et al., US 2019/0043315 A1 (hereinafter LaDuca); Mothwurf et al., US 2001/0036857 A1 (hereinafter Mothwurf); and Humphrey et al., US 2020/0357235 A1 (hereinafter Humphrey).
LaDuca discloses a method of playing and presenting a game, such as at a gaming table, a player places a game wager to play a blackjack game (LaDuca [Abstract]). The player may also place an optional bonus bet (LaDuca [Abstract]). The blackjack game is presented by dealing at least an initial player hand of two cards and an initial dealer hand of two cards (LaDuca [Abstract]). If the player places the optional bonus bet, a determination is made whether the bonus bet is winning, wherein the bonus bet is winning if a bonus winning outcome has been received relative to the initial player hand and/or initial dealer hand (LaDuca [Abstract]). A bonus bet award is awarded for a winning bonus bet and a blackjack game award is preferably awarded if the player receives a winning blackjack game outcome (LaDuca [Abstract]).
Mothwurf teaches a jackpot system that provides the casino management with a wide degree of flexibility in configuring the wins associated with the jackpot (Mothwurf [0046]). Mothwurf teaches for each trigger input, the dynamic probability matrix can modify the range of numbers within which the selection generator can generate a random number and can change the chance of the winning entry being generated accordingly (Mothwurf [0064]). That is to say, said means for varying the probability of a win comprises means for varying the range of random numbers capable of generation by said selection generator in response to each trigger input (Mothwurf [0064]).
Humphrey teaches gaming systems and methods which utilize one or more persistent supplemental awards to dynamically modify or otherwise alter one or more awards associated with one or more game outcomes of a paytable (Humphrey [Abstract]). The gaming system disclosed herein determines one or more awards based on certain static aspects of a paytable as well as based on certain dynamic or changing aspects of the same paytable (Humphrey [0013]).
The prior art, alone or in combination, absent hindsight, does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant argues “Based on the guidance provided in the MPEP and the Examples issued by the USPTO, the recited limitations in the amended independent claims cannot be reasonably interpreted as being directed to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or the Mental Processes grouping of Abstract Ideas” (Response [p. 13]).
The claim’s substance – modifying a payout, evaluate a hand, pay an award if it matches – are exactly the kind of wagering/game-rule content In re Smith and Guldenaar held as abstract. Applicant hasn’t identified anything the claim does beyond conducting the wagering game and displaying its outcome.
Applicant goes on to state “As described in MPEP 2106.04(a), animation using computer-implemented rules are not directed to an abstract idea. See McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1103 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (Response [p. 13]).
McRO is distinguishable from the present application since McRO “aim[ed] to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes” (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 2015-1080 slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). The Court in McRO states “[t]he claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice” (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 2015-1080 slip op. at 27 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). In contrast, applicant’s specification states “By modifying the paytable images being displayed on the electronic trend board, the present invention improves electronic trend board technology by providing an electronic trend board with a processor and random number generator for use in modifying the images rendered on the trend board display to increase player engagement” (Specification [0015]). Whereas McRO provided a technical improvement, the present claims “increase player engagement” which is a business/marketing goal not a technical one.
Applicant argues that the present claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 (Response [pp. 13-14]).
The examiner disagrees.
Example 37 recites a method that automatically moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use. Randomly selecting a boost value which hand to boost and by how much is driven by random numbers and stored probability tables, not by any usage-derived, technical triggers. The random selection of boost values from a data file is not equivalent to dynamically repositioning GUI elements based on usage patterns.
Applicant also argues that MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) indicates that claims reciting specific steps taken by a computer processor to animate icons on a graphical user interface do not recite (set forth or describe) an abstract idea.
Both examples involve claims that manipulate computer data structures in ways that cannot be mentally performed. Randomly selecting affixed-pay hand image, randomly selecting a boosted value, and animating a value change do not manipulate the data structures in a technologically non-trivial way. It merely requires ordinary database lookup and display update.
Applicant argues that the claims exhibit an improvement over conventional computer functionality even if the improvement lacks novelty over the prior art (Response [p. 15]).
Applicant has not identified any improvements in the display technology, sensor technology, RNG technology, or card-reader technology. No technical problem is identified. The stated goal in the specification is that the present claims “increase player engagement” which is not a technical problem.
Finally, applicant argues that the lack of prior art rejections under 35 USC 102/103 prove that they recite significantly more than a judicial exception as the claimed elements are not well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (Response [p. 15]).
According to MPEP 2106.05,
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
That is, the presence or absence of prior art rejections is of no relevance in determining subject matter eligibility determination under 35 USC 101.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights