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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 6/18/26. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16, 19, and 20 have been amended and claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1 – 22 are now pending in the current application.
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 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13 – 18, and 20 - 22 are directed towards a system, (machine), and claim 19 is directed towards a method, (process), which are a statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A system comprising: a gaming establishment component processor; and a gaming establishment component memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the gaming establishment component processor, cause the gaming establishment component processor to: provide, to a player in a portion of players, a plurality of digital game assets that correspond to a new game before the new game is released for public access, wherein the plurality of digital game assets comprise a cryptographic token, wherein the cryptographic token comprises cryptographic hash data indicative of a hashing function and associated with a common blockchain; after the new game is released for public access, determine the player has initiated the new game at an electronic gaming machine (EGM); securely authenticate the cryptographic token against the common blockchain based on the cryptographic hash data; based on the authentication of the cryptographic token, provide a game benefit of the new game to the player via the EGM, wherein the game benefit comprises a plurality of free games of the new game; and collect player data corresponding to the player based on usage by the player of the cryptographic token.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 19 and 20. Dependent claims 2 – 9, 11, 13 – 18, 21, and 22 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of marketing or sales activities which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that generates and presents a new game to player, wherein prior to the new game’s release and before the player accesses the game, the gaming system provides the player a plurality of game assets, wherein after the player initiates play of the new game, the player is provided a game benefit. Providing a player with pre-game assets before the release of a new game providing post-game benefits after a player initiates play of the new game, represents marketing or sales activities. (In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This also represents managing personal behavior.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards provides a player digital assets before a new game is released and after presenting the new game to the player, the player is provided a game benefit, (free games), after the digital assets have been authenticated. The claims recite instructions for controlling a video game with these features. Here, a human can observe that a plurality of digital assets have been provided prior to a new game’s release, and that the digital assets have been authenticated, wherein a human can then determine a next step after initiating play of the new game and that a game benefit, (free games), will be provided. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor and memory along with instructions that generate and present a new game to a player, wherein the player receives pre-game assets and post-game benefits which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor and memory, wherein the claim language further discloses digital assets, (crypto tokens), that are maintained via a blockchain, wherein merely invoking a blockchain that maintains digital assets, does not, as claimed, improve the computers, networks, or blockchain technology. The claim simply maintains and authenticates digital assets. The claims do not recite how the system leverages or performs any consensus/cryptographic verification to improve performance, security, or reliability, which reflects conventional data capture and storage without a technical improvement, wherein, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 20, Applicants argue that the “claims are not directed to "abstract ideas" such as mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, laws of nature or natural phenomena. Therefore, since Applicant's claims do not recite matter that falls within the enumerating groupings of abstract ideas, Applicant's claims should not be treated as reciting an abstract idea”, and that “the claims are not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus are patent eligible”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claims are directed towards a gaming system that provides a player digital assets prior to playing the game and a free games benefit after initiating play of the game. This clearly represents a fundamental economic practice and managing personal behavior, which falls into the category of organizing human activity. Claims that allow a user to play a game based on certain, (e.g. following rules relating to operational inputs), are transactions relate to the sort of organizing human activities discussed in Bilski and Marco Guldenaar, wherein when a player of the game fulfils certain obligations, (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F. 3d 1157).
Applicants further argue that the “claims clearly integrate any abstract idea into a practical application”. More specifically it is argued that the claim limitations of providing a game to player, the digital assets, (crypto tokens), comprising hash data associated with a blockchain, and authenticating the digital assets as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, merely invoking a blockchain that maintains digital assets, does not, as claimed, improve the computers, networks, or blockchain technology as the claims d not recite how the system leverages or performs any consensus/cryptographic verification to improve performance, security, or reliability, which reflects conventional data capture and storage without a technical improvement. The blockchain context is a field-of-use limitation; steps like “authenticated/associated” are generic instructions to apply an abstract commercial scheme using conventional components. The recitation that the digital asset is associated/authenticated is contextual and not tethered to a specific, claimed technical mechanism. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (data gathering) and 2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity). Generic processing devices, (processor and memory), authenticating and associating digital assets with an item are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer functions. See Alice (generic computer). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Applicants further argue that the “systems and methods embodied in the present claims solve the unique technical problem within the field of gaming”. More specifically it is argued that, as highlighted by the Applicants in paragraphs, 0001, 0002, 0020, and 0021, that increasing player interest in wagering games by provided digital assets, is an improvement in the functioning of a computer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations of providing a player digital assets prior to the release of a new game and provide free games to player after initiating play of the new game as viewed as solutions to artistic or business problems, not technical problems. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights