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, 4-12, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 15 have been amended and no new claims have been added. Claims 3-4 and 13-14 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims are not directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 6-8) and ii) the prior art rejections under 35 USC 103 do not render obvious or teach the claimed subject matter (see Remarks, pg. 9-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided in the sections below.
Response to Applicant’s representative arguments under 35 USC 101
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are a) not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 6-7) and b) integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 7-9).
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to steps for “responding to a cashout input being received when an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device is greater than zero and less than a minimum wager amount by, independent of the play of any game: communicating data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the input to cashout the amount of the credit meter and causing a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event” (see Remarks, pg. 6-7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to managing a sport wager on a sporting event which include rules and/or instructions to be responsive to a cashout input being received when an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device is greater than zero and less than a minimum wager. Stated differently, rules and/or instructions for managing a sports wager on a sporting event are analogous to a fundamental economic activity and/or managing a social activity which the courts have indicated as a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because they recite “an improved way to handle a cashout input when an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device is greater than zero and less than a minimum wager amount needed to engage the gaming device further” which amounts to a specific improvement in technology (see Remarks, pg. 7-8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, managing a sports wager including rules and/or instructions for placing the wager on the outcome of a sporting event when a cashout input has been received and an amount of the credit meter of a gaming device is less than a minimum wager amount is directed to the certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing the placement of a wager on a sporting event) which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Additionally, the Applicant’s representative submits that as a whole, the claims recite a solution to the recognized problem associated with “cashless ticket vouchers on users and gaming establishments, especially low-value printed cashless ticket vouchers”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, the claimed invention purports to solve the aforementioned recognized problem by a solution of “placing a wager on a sporting event”. The purported solution, as claimed, recites “without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in associated with the input to cashout the amount of the credit meter, and independent of the play of any game, cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event”. However, this is not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem, improves the functioning of the system, or to a different field of technology but towards a fundamental economic activity. The additional limitations of the claims, when viewed as a whole, such as: “a processor” “a memory that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:” “responsive to a credit meter of a gaming device”, “displayed by the gaming device”, “an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device:”, “communicate data that causes the gaming device”, and “without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the input to cashout the amount of the credit meter” may be construed as reciting steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., ‘responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device’, ‘displayed by the gaming device’, ‘communicate data that causes the gaming device’ are found to recite extra solution activity to managing a wager), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a system comprising a processor, a memory, a credit meter of a gaming device) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that when the claim is viewed as a whole, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are not not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2. For at least these reasons, the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
Response to Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections under 35 USC 103
With respect to the prior art combination of Singer and Stronach, the Applicant’s representative asserts that i) Singer does not disclose or suggest “independent of the play of any game, causing a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being greater than zero and less than the minimum wager amount for the play of the game displayed by the gaming device and an occurrence of an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device” and ii) Stronach does not disclose “a wager for a play of a reel-type slot game or a minimum wager amount for such a play of a reel-type slot game”.
With respect to the prior art of Singer, the Applicant’s representative argues that Singer discloses an alternative wager proposition to include a play of a bonus game, accepting the alternative wager opportunity, and allowing the player to chose to wager the player’s remaining credit balance for a chance to win an alternative award but does not teach or suggest “independent of the play of any game, causing a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being a wager that is sufficient to provide for a game”. After further consideration of the prior art, the Examiner finds that Singer explicitly discloses that “alternative wager propositions” are separate from and in addition to any wagers that can be placed on any plays of the wagering game” to be made to a player when the player’s credit balance is less than a designated wager amount (e.g., wherein in at least one embodiment the minimum wager amount is the designated amount – Specification, 0123). It follows that the alternative wager propositions, which include allow for the amount less than the designated wager amount to be used (e.g., the amount risked associated with each of the alternative wager propositions is equal to the player’s entire credit balance” that is below the designated wager amount -Specification, 0146, 0152) to “try for a bigger backroll”, “predetermined, randomly determined, or determined based on a wager by a player” option, “a play off credit balance option”, “a play of a bonus game that may not be triggered during play of the gaming system” (see Specification, 0146-0147, 0152, 0167), which may be used to win an alternative award that may be determined randomly (see Specification, 0174). Stated differently, Singer teaches providing an alternative wager proposition that is independent of any plays of the wager game when the player’s credit balance is less than a minimum wager amount in which the remaining amount of the balance is risked to provide an wagering opportunity for an alternative award. However, Singer is silent with respect to the alternative wager option being “independent of the play of any game” because it provides an alternative award option to place a wager using the remaining amount of the credit balance which is a play of a wagering game. Furthermore, though Singer teaches a cash out input to cashout the amount of the credit meter to be presented to the user it is silent with resect to presenting the alternative wagering opportunity during an “occurrence of an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device:” as recited in the claims. For at least these reasons, the prior art is not found to teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention and the prior art rejections based upon Singer have been withdrawn.
With respect to Stronach, the prior art teaches a conventional technique to provide the opportunity of a parimutuel wager to be placed on the outcome of a sporting event (see Stronach, 0049, 0053, 0069, wherein the race system enables a wager on an elected race event of the displayed race events). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application would have been motivated to substitute a play of a bonus game with a known alternative wagering opportunity such as a parimutuel wager placed on a sport racing event. However, as noted above, this does not cure the deficiencies of being “independent of the play of any game” because a wager on a sport racing event, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a wagering game. It follows that the prior art techniques of Stronach cannot be independent of the play of any game because it is a play of a wagering game. For at least these reasons, the prior art combination has been withdrawn.
With respect to the remaining prior art arguments, the rejections have been withdrawn for the stated deficiencies of Singer as explained above. With respect to any statements made by the Applicant’s representative regarding the pending claims and the cited references that have been made moot by the amendments above, the Examiner reserves the right to challenge such statements in the future should the need arise (e.g., if any such statement should become relevant by appearing in a rejection or amendment of any current or future claim).
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, 4-10, 12, and 15-20 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 such as: “responsive to an amount of a credit meter being greater than zero and less than a minimum wager amount for a play of any game”; “an occurrence of an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the gaming device:” “independent of the play of any game, cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event” – certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations indicated above are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage a sports wager which is analogous to certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as: “a processor” and “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”, “a credit meter of a gaming device”, “displayed by the gaming device” and “independent of the play of any game, communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the input to cashout the amount of the credit meter” recite instructions that amount to mere instructions 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)). For at least these reasons, the additional elements 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 processor” and “ a memory” and “a gaming device” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea similar to the courts findings in Alice v. CLS (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a processor and a memory and a gaming device to implement a wagering game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more under Step 2B.
Independent Claims 10 recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 10 but is directed to a multiple leg sporting event wager which does not change the nature of the claim from managing a sporting event wager. For substantially the same reasons, independent Claim 10 is found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 4-9 and 15-20, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite additional limitations that are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 15-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claim 1 recites “independent of the play of any game, cause a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event”, independent Claim 10 recites “independent of the play of any game, cause a multiple leg sporting event wager to be placed on a plurality of outcomes of a plurality of sporting events”, and independent Claim 12 recites “independent of the play of any game, causing, by a processor, a sporting event wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event” are found to recite NEW MATTER that is not adequately described to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. While the Specification discloses wagering games such as: “a sporting events wager to be placed on an outcome of a sporting event” and “a multiple leg sporting event wager to be placed on a plurality of outcomes of a plurality of sporting events” recited by independent Claims 1, 10, and 12, these are each instances of a play of a wagering game. Stated differently, the claimed response by the system to cause the sporting event wager and a multiple leg sporting event wager is not independent of “any game” because they it is causing a play of a sporting event wagering game. It follows that the claimed play of the sporting event wager and the multiple leg sporting event wager cannot be independent of the play of “any game” as recited in the claim. For at least these reasons, the claimed subject matter is not found to be adequately supported in the Specification to show possession of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights