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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/16/2026 has been entered.
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 they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
As summarized in the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
In step 1, it must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1-20 are directed to systems and methods, which are statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the instant invention is directed to “facilitating selection of an electronic game in a multigame gaming system.” Spec. ¶ 1. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
1. A method for selecting electronic games available in a multigame system, the method comprising:
displaying, by a processor of a gaming system, a game selection user interface providing for selection of an electronic game of a plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system;
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, selection of a feature of a plurality of features of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system;
filtering, by the processor of the gaming system, a list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system based on the selected feature of the plurality of features;
displaying, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, the filtered list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system, wherein the filtered list comprises a plurality of the electronic games available on the gaming system;
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, a selection of an electronic game from the filtered list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system;
execute, by the processor of the gaming system, the selected electronic game;
detecting, by the processor of the gaming system, an occurrence of an event during execution of the selected electronic game; and
in response to the occurrence of the event during execution of the selected electronic game, providing, by the processor of the gaming system, a suggestion based on the selected feature of the plurality of features.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions of the exemplary claim, with substantially similar features found in independent claims 9 and 15. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 further define the abstract idea (e.g., by providing suggestions of which game to play based on a profile for a player, listing features such as bonus games or wild features, allowing players to switch between wagering games, etc.) or relate to implementation of the abstract idea (e.g., post solution activity such as displaying or printing results, etc.). The abstract idea may be viewed, for example as:
Real-time monitoring of an electronic system, as in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system, as in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014);
An interface providing user display access of customized information, as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015);
A method of managing games similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
A method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., wagering games) as discussed in In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016) and In Re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.; and
A method of organizing human activities, as discussed in Alice and Bilski.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively an algorithm or set of instructions directed to providing a menu of games that meet one or more criteria. Such steps amount to observation, judgment, and collection of information that could be carried out mentally or with the use of pen and paper. The claims also include carrying out game actions played by human players, which suggests that the invention is directed to organizing human activities as discussed in Smith, Marco Guldenaar, Alice and Bilski.
In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit found that merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. The claims at issue were directed to gathering information to identify problems in an electric grid and to output that information to a user. The court found that such steps constitute an abstract idea based upon several previous court decisions, including Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Content Extraction &Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. The Court also relied upon TLI Communications, Digitech, Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life, among others, to state that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
The abstract idea in the present case is similar in that it gathers information about games and creates a listing of games that meet one or more selected criteria. There is no asserted inventive concept in the improvement of computers as tools, but instead upon certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Such a finding suggests that the decisions in Enfish v. Microsoft, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America do not apply here. Therefore, under Step 2A prong 2, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: a gaming system (or gaming machine) having a processor, display, memory, and user interface to carry out the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These features do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they encompass generic computer implementation (e.g., a computing device or a network device) as well as other well-understood, routine and conventional devices (e.g., smart phone, camera, audio device, etc.).
The Supreme Court in Alice found that claim recitations of a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” are purely functional and generic. The Court further stated, “Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance...The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea.” The Court concluded that “[b]ecause petitioner's system and media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, we hold that they too are patent ineligible under §101.” The same conclusion is reached with respect to the claims of the instant invention. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0224753 to O’Donovan et al. (hereinafter O’Donovan) in view of US 2003/0119579 to Walker et al. (hereinafter Walker).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, O’Donovan teaches a system, EGM, and method for selecting electronic games available in a multigame system, the system or EGM comprising a display device (e.g., video display 12), processor coupled with the display device (e.g., to interface between the memory and display device in ¶ 17), and memory storing instructions (e.g., memory in ¶ 31), the method comprising:
displaying, by a processor of a gaming system, a game selection user interface providing for selection of an electronic game of a plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system (e.g., the player is prompted to enter the various criteria via a display screen menu or a series of menus in ¶ 18);
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, selection of a feature of a plurality of features of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system (e.g., the player is prompted to enter the various criteria via a display screen menu or a series of menus in ¶ 18);
filtering, by the processor of the gaming system, a list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system based on the selected feature of the plurality of features (e.g., After inputting, the desired or necessary characteristics at Step S140, the gaming machine most closely matches the inputted desired characteristics with previously configured default games stored in memory at Step S150 in ¶ 20; see also filtering in ¶ 22);
displaying, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, the filtered list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system (e.g., After inputting, the desired or necessary characteristics at Step S140, the gaming machine most closely matches the inputted desired characteristics with previously configured default games stored in memory at Step S150 in ¶ 20), wherein the filtered list comprises a plurality of the electronic games available on the gaming system (e.g., “comparing each of the one or more inputs with one or more game parameters of a plurality of default games previously stored in memory; suggesting one or more of the plurality of default games stored in memory most closely associated with the game configuration data” in reference claim 1);
receiving, by the processor of the gaming system, through the game selection user interface, a selection of an electronic game from the filtered list of the plurality of electronic games available on the gaming system (e.g., After the gaming machine matches or closely matches a default configuration, it asks the player to play the default configuration at Step S160. If the player accepts the default configuration at Step S170 play begins at Step S830. If the player does not accept the most closely matching default configurations, the gaming machine configures one or more new games with the desired characteristics at Step S180 and the user beings play at Step S130 in ¶ 21; see also reference claim 1); and
execute, by the processor of the gaming system, the selected electronic game (e.g., the user begins play at Step 170 or Step S130).
Further regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, O’Donovan teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching detecting, by the processor of the gaming system, an occurrence of an event during execution of the selected electronic game; and in response to the occurrence of the event during execution of the selected electronic game, providing, by the processor of the gaming system, a suggestion based on the selected feature of the plurality of features.
In a related disclosure, Walker teaches a gaming device and method thereof that allows a player to modify at least one element of a gaming device, such as the probability of occurrence for one or more outcomes, a corresponding payout, the amount wagered, etc. (abstract). In this way, Walker allows a user to choose among a plurality of customization options using a customization menu (e.g., ¶ 160). Furthermore, Walker teaches that the gaming device may prompt the player with customization offers upon certain event triggers. For example, after the player has received several outcomes of "bar-bar-bar", the gaming device might suggest that the player increase the payout for the outcome "bar-bar-bar" in exchange for which the player will increase his rate of play (see ¶ 276). This corresponds to the claimed detecting of an event and providing a suggestion based on the selected feature that O’Donovan lacks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of O’Donovan to detect an event and provide a suggestion based on the selected game feature, as taught or suggested by Walker, in order to encourage the player to play for longer periods of time and thus increase profits for the casino, as beneficially taught by Walker (see ¶¶ 3-6).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, O’Donovan combined with Walker teaches or suggests saving, by the processor of the gaming system, the received selection of the feature of the plurality of features in a profile associated with a player of the selected electronic game (e.g., loading a previously saved game at Step S110; see also ¶ 33 keeping a record of game theme combinations the player has a history of playing and suggesting them for future games).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests providing, by the processor of the gaming system, during execution of the selected electronic game, an indication of a suggested electronic game based on the profile associated with the player of the selected electronic game (e.g., providing a suggestion based on the player’s previous game results in Walker ¶ 276). See discussion of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests wherein providing the suggestion comprises providing a list of a plurality of electronic games based on the selected feature of the plurality of features (e.g., “comparing each of the one or more inputs with one or more game parameters of a plurality of default games previously stored in memory; suggesting one or more of the plurality of default games stored in memory most closely associated with the game configuration data” in O’Donovan claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, O’Donovan combined with Walker teaches or suggests wherein the selected feature comprises a free game bonus feature (e.g., bonus games in ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests wherein the selected feature comprises a wild feature (e.g., symbol types that a wild symbol may assume, Walker ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests wherein the selected feature comprises a multiplier feature (e.g., a 2x symbol that multiplies a payout by 2, Walker ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests wherein the selected feature comprises a pick-a-prize feature (e.g., a defined symbol combination pays double, a selection of a progressive jackpot fraction, revealing prizes that are hidden behind closed doors, etc., Walker ¶¶ 86, 89, and 90).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests wherein the selected feature comprises a progressive prize feature (e.g., the amount that a player’s gaming device contributes to a progressive jackpot and/or the fraction of the progressive jackpot that a player will win if he obtains a progressive jackpot outcome, Walker ¶¶ 88-89).
Regarding claims 4, 6-8, 18, and 20, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests the invention substantially as described above, including presenting a game menu to a player and allowing a player to select a previously saved game, but lacks in explicitly teaching a request to switch games during execution of the game (claims 4 and 18) or (b) providing the games substantially upon conclusion of a game (claims 6-8 and 20). Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of O’Donovan and Walker to provide the game list to the player during execution of a game in order to allow the player to switch to a different game that is more suited to the player’s desires. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of O’Donovan and Walker to provide the game list to the player substantially upon conclusion of a game in order to allow the player to play a subsequent game.
Further regarding claim 7, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching printing the list of games on a cash out ticket. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of O’Donovan and Walker to include the list of suggested games on a printed cash out ticket in order to provide the player with a written list of games to play at a future visit to the casino.
Further regarding claim 8, the combination of O’Donovan and Walker teaches or suggests the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching a pop-up window to display the list of games. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of O’Donovan and Walker to include the list of suggested games on a pop-up window in order to allow players to consider possible game options without interrupting their current games.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the instant claim amendments address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Remarks 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amendments relate to detecting events in the game and making suggestions based on the selected game features. While the claims are modified from their previous form, there is no substantive difference in terms of patent eligibility. As such, the rejection under § 101 is maintained herein.
Applicant addresses the rejection of claims as anticipated or obvious over O’Donovan on pages 7-8 of the Remarks. The arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection over O’Donovan and Walker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights