DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s submission of a response on 2/6/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1 - 20. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 - 20 recites at least one step or instruction for collecting physiological player data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising machine readable code which, when executed by one or more processors of one or more servers, cause the processor one or more processors to:
receive physiological information from an electronic gaming machine, the physiological information indicating a quantified characteristic of a physiological state of a player (managing personal behavior which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity and judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior under the 2019 PEG), the quantified characteristic based on player data collected using one or more sensors associated with a player interface unit of the electronic gaming machine;
analyze the received physiological information using one or more databases storing
physiological data, including:
compare, the received physiological information with the stored physiological data (judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing personal behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
identify, based on the comparison, a context associated with the received physiological information, the identified context including one or more of: an extrapolation, a determination, or an anticipation of a player attribute; configure instructions based on the identified context; and
transmit the instructions to the electronic gaming machine, the instructions configured to cause occurrence of one or more events associated with the electronic gaming machine (extra-solution activity).
Accordingly, as indicated in bold above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract
idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more servers, an electronic gaming machine, one or more sensors, player interface, one or more databases as recited in independent Claims 1 and 11 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, the player interface and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the
abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea
identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
one or more processors, one or more servers, an electronic gaming machine, one or more sensors, player interface, one or more database as recited in independent claims 1 and 11). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Javitt (US 2013/0178791) discloses that the technology related to sensors monitoring user's physiological conditions such as heart beat (pulse), blood pressure, skin moisture (sweat), body temperature are also well known to those with ordinary skill in the art (see [0017]).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 - 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more processors, one or more servers, an electronic gaming machine, one or more sensors, player interface, one or more database as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner
(e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev.
Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or, other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1 - 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 - 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1 - 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 - 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the amendments have overcome the 101 rejection, more specifically applicant states a practical application on the server side of the gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to implement and leverage hardware including one or more databases storing physiological data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to abstract ideas including collecting, analyzing, recognizing data and transmitting instructions. The claims do not recite an improvement to computer technology, but instead merely use generic computing devices to perform conventional data processing steps. The sensors and databases are used exactly as intended, as a tool, using a computer tool to perform an abstract idea is not practical application. The compare and identifying are considered to be mental processes and transmitting data is extra solution activity.
The Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to claim 3 of Example 37 of the USPTO Section 101 guidelines because the instant one or more processors, one or more servers, an electronic gaming machine, one or more sensors, player interface, one or more database are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic electronic gaming machine performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same is true for the claimed player interface and sensors. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility states “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and “[c]laims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (p. 8). Furthermore, the October 2019 Update states, “examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (p. 8).
Further, the October 2019 Update states on pages 4-5 that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person as well as activity that involves multiple people. The guidance also notes that certain activities between a person and a computer may still fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the instant claims, which include benefit transactions involving one or more users, are properly construed as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”), as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology to technical field.
Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing an advertisement based off data collected of the player executed on generic and conventional computing devices. There is not any indication that the invention provides a technological solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claimed invention merely recites a technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be practiced. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715