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 February 26, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated November 26, 2025. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 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 and 5-20 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-3 and 5-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
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 and 5-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 17-19 are directed to a video lottery terminal (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is 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 system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a winning game result of a video lottery game at a video lottery terminal (VLT) by a first player;
determine whether a game award for the winning game result meets a first threshold;
determine whether the winning game result is associated with a player account of the first player;
in response to a determination that the game award meets the first threshold and a determination that the winning game result is not associated with a player account;
control a Graphical User Interface (GUI) of a display device of the VLT to display a prompt to the first player to create a player account;
based on input from the first player at the VLT via an input device of the VLT, the input comprising first identifying information of the first player, create the player account;
generate a first redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the first redemption ticket comprises a machine-readable code comprising second identifying information corresponding to the first identifying information, and wherein the first redemption ticket is redeemable for the game award only by the first player; and
print, by a printer device associated with the first player, the first redemption ticket;
in response to a determination that the game award meets the first threshold and a determination that the winning game result is associated with a player account:
generate the first redemption ticket for the game award; and
print, by the printer device, the first redemption ticket; and
in response to a determination that the winning game result does not meet the first threshold:
generate a second redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the second redemption ticket comprises a bearer instrument redeemable by a bearer of the second redemption ticket; and
print, by the printer device, the second redemption ticket.
Claim 17 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a video lottery terminal (VLT) comprising:
a display device comprising a Graphical User Interface (GUI);
an input device;
a ticket printer device;
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a winning game result of a video lottery game at the VLT by a first player;
in response to a determination that a game award for the winning game result meets a first threshold and a determination that the winning game result is not associated with a player account;
control the GUI of the display device to display a prompt to the first player to create a player account;
receive input from the first player at the input device comprising first identifying information of the first player;
based on the first identifying information, create the player account; and
print, by the ticket printer device a first redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the first redemption ticket comprises a machine readable code comprising second identifying information corresponding to the first identifying information, and wherein the first redemption ticket is redeemable for the game award only by the first player; and
in response to a determination that the winning game result does not meet the first threshold:
printing, by the ticket printer device, a second redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the second redemption ticket comprises a bearer instrument redeemable by a bearer of the second redemption ticket.
Claim 20 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit, a winning game result of a video lottery game at a video lottery terminal (VLT) by a first player;
determining, by the processor circuit, whether a game award for the winning game result meets a first threshold;
determining, by the processor circuit, whether the winning game result is associated with a player account of the first player;
in response to a determination that the game award meets the first threshold and a determination that the winning game result is not associated with a player account;
causing the VLT to display a prompt to the first player to create a player account;
based on input from the first player at the VLT comprising first identifying information of the first player, creating, by the processor circuit, the player account; and
printing, by a ticket printer device, a first redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the first redemption ticket comprises second identifying information corresponding to the first identifying information, and wherein the first redemption ticket is redeemable for the game award only by the first player; and
in response to a determination that the winning game result does not meet the first threshold:
printing, by the ticket printer device, a second redemption ticket for the game award, wherein the second redemption ticket comprises a bearer instrument redeemable by a bearer of the second redemption ticket.
The present claims are relate to automatic account registration at gaming devices, and in particular to automatic account registration for large lottery awards at video lottery terminals (VLTs). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices and principles because they relate to game awards for a video lottery game at a video lottery terminal. Additionally, the limitations fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they include rules for a game and filtering content. The claims also fall under the category of mental processes because many of the determining steps (e.g., determine whether a game award for the winning game result meets a first threshold, determine whether the winning game result is associated with a player account of the first player) could 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 processor circuit, a memory, a video lottery terminal, a display device, an input device, a printer device, a financial server, an image capture device, an image scanner device, a site controller, a central server, a ticket printer device, a document scanner device, and printing redemption tickets. 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 processor circuit, a memory, an input device (Vagner, US 2015/0302482 A1, a general computer can include a memory, a processor, input/out components, and other components that are common for general computers, all of which are well known in the art [0099])
a video lottery terminal, a site controller, a financial server, a central server (Cole et al., US 2011/0275443 A1, the gaming machine 100 may be configured to obtain game code or game outcome information from a remote server; the gaming machine 100 may also communicate with a remote accounting server and/or player tracking server, as is well known in the art [0037]);
a display device, an image scanner device, an image capture device, a printer device, a document scanner device, a ticket printer device (Coulombe et al., US 2012/0061150 A1, operation of touchscreen display 431, scanner 432 and other product code entry devices, video camera 433, coin acceptor 421, bill acceptor 422, card reader 423, bagging rack 424, coin dispenser 411 and receipt printer 413 are conventional and known in the art [0025]),
printing redemption tickets is merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements 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. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-3 and 5-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant argues claims 1-3 and 5-20 are directed to eligible subject matter (Response [p. 8-11]). More specifically, applicant states:
In this regard, claim 1, as amended, is not directed to a judicial exception, and accordingly satisfies the first prong. In particular, the term "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping is specifically limited to "certain" methods, i.e., specific enumerated methods and not all methods of organizing human activity. These "certain" methods consist of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people. Here, in contrast, claim 1 is directed to, inter alia, specialized hardware and software for interacting with specialized hardware components of a VLT, including that performs a detailed set of operations that, taken as a whole, describe a technical process for selectively generating and printing different types of physical redemption tickets in response to different game results at the VLT. Thus, for at least this reason, claim 1 is eligible under prong 2A. (Response [p. 10])
Under prong 1 of step 2A, examiners determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. Although the claims also recite generic hardware components, under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is looking for the presence of one or more abstract ideas. The additional elements are considered under prong 2 of step 2A and step 2B. The examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea in prong 1 of step 2A, as described above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, examiners ask whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. In the present claims, there is no indication that the additional elements improve the functioning of a computer, or an improve another technology or technical field. The additional elements recite generic hardware components that do not define a particular machine or manufacture. Nothing is transformed or reduced to a different state or thing. The judicial exception is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The combination of these additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant also argues:
In addition, claim has been amended to recite "control[ling] a Graphical User Interface (GUI)" of a display device of the VLT. As a result, the claims are similar to the claims at issue in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir 2018) (finding claims directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices to be patent eligible). Thus, for this additional reason, claim 1 is eligible under prong 2A. (Response [p. 10])
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. Core Wireless disclosed an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The present claims do not improve a GUI. Instead, the present claims merely display screens to prompt a player to create a player account. The examiner is unable to identify how the present claims improve the GUI that prompts a player to create a player account. The mere recitation of a GUI in a claim is not the same as disclosing an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application as recited in Core Wireless.
Finally, applicant argues:
Because prong 2A is satisfied, it is not necessary to analyze the claim under prong 2B. Nevertheless, to the extent that claim 1 could be interpreted to recite an abstract idea, any such alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, and therefore also independently satisfies prong 2B. In particular, claim 1 is analogous to Claims 1 and 2 of Example 37 of the October Update of the 2019 PEG (which recite, inter alia, "receiving, via the GUI, a user selection"). Thus, for at least this additional reason, claim 1 is eligible under prong 2B. (Response [p. 10])
The examiner does not agree that the present claims are similar to the claims at issue in Example 37.
Example 37 describes a method for rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the method 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. The present claims merely display . The present claims, therefore, are not comparable to the claims of Example 37. As stated above, the present claims merely display screens to prompt a player to create a player account. The screen merely displays a prompt during the execution of the abstract idea. The examiner maintains that claims 1-3 and 5-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, the examiner agrees that the previously cited prior art no longer reads on the claims as currently recited. There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-3 and 5-20.
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