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
After the amendments filed 01/23/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1, 3, 14, 16 and 18 were amended.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 18, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A gaming machine implementing an optimized nudge operation, comprising:
a processor for executing a set of instructions to implement a reel-based game;
a memory in communication with the processor for storing the set of instructions;
a value interface in communication with the processor for receiving payment from a user to play the reel-based game;
nudge logic for algorithmically determining an effect of all possible nudge operations on initial results of the reel-based game when played by the user by analyzing a predetermined set of reel combinations and their associated payouts, and identifying a best possible outcome based on a highest payout value (Mental Processes); and
two hardware nudge buttons for selecting among the nudge operations for the reel-based game to change the initial results to final outcome for the reel-based game.
Independent claim 14 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
14. A method for implementing enhanced nudging for a gaming machine, comprising:
receiving game play selections from a user utilizing a gaming machine (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving payment for a game implemented on the gaming machine (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
initiating the game in response to a user selection (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
algorithmically determining an effect of all possible nudge operations on the initial results of the game (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
communicating the initial results of the game to the user (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
offering two nudge operations utilizing a display of the gaming machine including at least a nudge operation with a best possible outcome (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
receiving a selection from the user which of the two nudge operations to perform or a non-selection (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
communicating winning information to the user in response to the user performing the nudge operation (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 14 (as well as claim(s) 1 and 18) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, a value interface, hardware nudge buttons, a user interface, a payment system, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering (Claim 14) (e.g., “receiving payment for a game implemented on the gaming machine”), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (Claim 14) (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions (Claims 1, 14 and 18), such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (Claims 1, 14 and 18) (e.g., “determining an effect of all possible nudge operations on the initial results of the game”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a memory, a value interface, hardware nudge buttons, a user interface, a payment system”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor, a memory, a value interface, hardware nudge buttons, a user interface, a payment system are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor, a memory, a value interface, hardware nudge buttons, a user interface, a payment system to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar (U.S. 2013/0296013) in view of Pettie (U.S. 10,410,469).
Regarding claims 1, Dunbar discloses:
a gaming machine implementing an optimized nudge operation (¶20-22, ¶35, Fig. 1, gaming machine 10 which includes a nudge feature), comprising:
a processor for executing a set of instructions to implement a reel-based game (¶47, CPU 74);
a memory in communication with the processor for storing the set of instructions (¶47, memory 84 which stores software which is executed by CPU 74);
a value interface in communication with the processor for receiving payment from a user to play the reel-based game (¶8, ¶48, currency processor 76 which receives coins and bills which a player places a wager with);
nudge logic for determining an effect of possible nudge operations on initial results of the reel-based game when played by the user (¶35-37, nudge control 64 which allows a player to perform various nudge operations); and
two hardware nudge buttons for selecting among the nudge operations for the reel-based game to change the initial results to final outcome for the reel-based game (¶35-37, Fig. 6, nudge control 64 used to nudge any of the reels up or down from an initial configuration to a nudged configuration).
However, Dunbar does not specifically disclose that:
The nudge logic determines an effect of all possible nudge operations on initial results by analyzing a predetermined set of reel combinations and their associated payouts, and identifying a best possible outcome based on a highest payout value.
Pettie teaches:
a gaming machine (10:55-11:15, gaming machine 2), which includes a reel symbol movement feature (8:30-48, the player may make symbol swaps between adjacent symbol positions (i), which is activated by a player input of a symbol movement button (8:10-39, the player presses a button to cause the symbols to move), and wherein the system determines an effect of all possible nudge operations on initial results by analyzing a predetermined set of reel combinations and their associated payouts, and identifying a best possible outcome based on a highest payout value (8:30-61, Figs. 3-6, the gaming machine 2 evaluates the state of the game to identify the optimal movement for the player and provides visual indicators to communicate the optimal movement for the player which will result in the largest payout possible).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the skill-assistance and optimization logic of Pettie into the gaming machine of Dunbar in order to provide a suggested optimal move based on payout analysis and provide players with the best possible outcome, thereby enhancing player engagement and enticing longer play and increased profitability.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Dunbar discloses:
a method for implementing enhanced nudging for a gaming machine (¶20-22, ¶35, Fig. 1, gaming machine 10 which includes a nudge feature), comprising:
receiving game play selections from a user utilizing a gaming machine (¶7, the player uses player controls 22 to interact with the gaming machine and which can be implemented as touch controls of a primary display including a touch activated overlay);
receiving payment for a game implemented on the gaming machine (¶8, ¶48, the player places wagers using currency processor 76);
initiating the game in response to a user selection (¶34, player uses spin button 60 to start the game);
communicating the initial results of the game to the user (¶34, player uses stop button 62stop the reels to display an initial outcome);
offering two nudge operations utilizing a display of the gaming machine including at least a nudge operation with a best possible outcome; receiving a selection from the user which of the two nudge operations to perform or a non-selection (¶35-37, Fig. 6, nudge control 64 used to nudge any of the reels up or down from an initial configuration to a nudged configuration); and
communicating winning information to the user in response to the user performing the nudge operation (¶35, after activation of the nudge control 64, the reels are caused to rotate to display a final reel configuration).
However, Dunbar does not specifically disclose:
algorithmically determining an effect of all possible nudge operations on the initial results of the game.
Pettie teaches:
a gaming machine (10:55-11:15, gaming machine 2), which includes a reel symbol movement feature (8:30-48, the player may make symbol swaps between adjacent symbol positions (i), which is activated by a player input of a symbol movement button (8:10-39, the player presses a button to cause the symbols to move), and wherein the system determines an effect of all possible nudge operations on initial results by analyzing a predetermined set of reel combinations and their associated payouts, and identifying a best possible outcome based on a highest payout value (8:30-61, Figs. 3-6, the gaming machine 2 evaluates the state of the game to identify the optimal movement for the player and provides visual indicators to communicate the optimal movement for the player which will result in the largest payout possible).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the skill-assistance and optimization logic of Pettie into the gaming machine of Dunbar in order to provide a suggested optimal move based on payout analysis and provide players with the best possible outcome, thereby enhancing player engagement and enticing longer play and increased profitability.
Regarding claim 2, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
a payoff mechanism for paying the user for the final outcome of the game (¶52, dispenser 102 which dispenses currency when a player wins).
Regarding claim 4, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses:
the game is a skill-based game utilizing the nudge operation (¶35-36, nudge control 64 introduces an element of skill to the game),
wherein the nudge operation is a skill required by a jurisdiction associated with a location of the gaming machine (¶87, all of the functions of the gaming machine must meet local regulatory requirements for gaming and the altering functions are tailored to meet regulatory schemes), and
the user is capable of making a wrong choice between the two hardware nudge buttons or not selecting one of the two hardware nudge buttons (¶26, ¶35-37, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, a win is defined at two or more symbols in a row, with an increase in payout for more symbols appearing in a row, therefore, a player who elects not to nudge reel 32 of the result shown in Fig. 2 in an upward manner would lessen their award by only receiving an award associated with 2 “F” symbols appearing the second row instead of receiving an award for 3 “F” symbols when nudged, the examiner interprets this as a wrong choice relative to the player’s desire to win a larger award).
Regarding claim 5, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the game is a reel-based game that the user wins by aligning random combinations of symbols on reels of the game (¶25, the player wins the slot machine game when the reels stop and a defined alignment of symbols appear on a payline).
Regarding claim 6, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the game displays at least three reels during the game (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the two hardware nudge buttons are an up nudge button and a down nudge button that are applicable to one reel at a time as determined by the nudge logic (¶35-37, Fig. 6, nudge control 64 used to nudge a reel up or down from an initial configuration to a nudged configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming machine is networked with a plurality of gaming machines (¶56, ¶61, all gaming machines are tied to a central server via communication link 92).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming machine is a slot machine (¶25, the player wins the slot machine game when the reels stop and a defined alignment of symbols appear on a payline).
Regarding claim 11, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming machine is limited to two dedicated nudge buttons for games of the gaming machine (¶35-37, Fig. 6, nudge control 64 used to nudge any of the reels up or down from an initial configuration to a nudged configuration).
Regarding claim 12, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the nudge is a change, movement, or swap of at least two components of the initial results (¶35-37, Fig. 6, nudge control 64 used to nudge any of the reels up or down from an initial configuration to a nudged configuration).
Regarding claim 13, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the nudge operation is a skill required for the user to win on one or more paylines of the game (¶35-36, nudge control 64 introduces an element of skill to the game), and
the user cannot win without selecting a correct button from the two or more hardware nudge buttons (¶26, ¶35-37, Fig. 2, a win is defined at two or more predefined symbols in a row, for example, if the predefined combination of symbols which constitute a win are at least 2 “A” symbols appearing along a horizontal payline the outcome of Fig. 2 would be a losing outcome if the player does not execute, for example, a nudge up operation on reel 32, thereby causing the top horizontal payline to include 2 “A” symbols).
Regarding claim 15, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the two nudge buttons are utilized to move one of a plurality of reels in one direction or another (¶35, Fig. 6, the player is given the option to move a reel up or down), and
wherein the two nudge buttons include an up nudge button and a down nudge button (Fig. 6, reference character 64), and
wherein only the two nudge buttons are displayed even though the game includes a plurality of reels (¶35-37, Fig. 6, the player may select and change selection of which reel to nudge using reel select controls 66).
Regarding claim 20, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the game includes three or more reels (Fig. 2), and
the nudge requires skill by the user to select correctly between the two nudge buttons to change the initial results to winning results associated with the winning information (¶26, ¶35-37, Fig. 2, a win is defined at two or more predefined symbols in a row, for example, if the predefined combination of symbols which constitute a win are at least 2 “A” symbols appearing along a horizontal payline the outcome of Fig. 2 would be a losing outcome if the player does not execute, for example, a nudge up operation on reel 32, thereby causing the top horizontal payline to include 2 “A” symbols).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar (U.S. 2013/0296013) in view of Pettie (U.S. 10,410,469) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Acres (U.S. 2011/0098099).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
a nudge operation would improve the initial results (¶75, inclusion of a nudge function changes the odds in the player’s favor).
However, Dunbar fails to disclose that:
the nudge logic illuminates one or more of the two hardware nudge buttons to indicate said nudge operation
Acres teaches:
a gaming machine (¶13, gaming device 10), which includes a reel nudge feature (¶28-29, a player may receive a benefit in the form of a nudge opportunity), which is activated by a player input of either a nudge up or nudge down button (¶28-29, Fig. 8A, to nudge the reels the player activates either nudge up or nudge buttons 290, 295), and wherein one or more of the nudge buttons are illuminated to indicate that the nudge operation is enabled (¶28, light box 288 is illuminated to indicate that the nudge feature is enabled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the illumination of the nudge button feature, as taught by Acres, to indicate that the nudge feature, which improves a player’s odds of winning, as taught by Dunbar and Pettie, is activated, in order to yield the predictable result of better informing players of the nudge game feature, which leads to increased player excitement and anticipation, thereby encouraging longer and more frequent plays and greater profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 10, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the gaming machine suggests a nudge to the user utilizing a user interface as a skill hint.
Acres teaches:
a gaming machine (¶13, gaming device 10), which includes a reel nudge feature (¶28-29, a player may receive a benefit in the form of a nudge opportunity), which is activated by a player input of either a nudge up or nudge down button (¶28-29, Fig. 8A, to nudge the reels the player activates either nudge up or nudge buttons 290, 295), and wherein one or more of the nudge buttons are illuminated to indicate that the nudge operation is enabled (¶28, light box 288 is illuminated to indicate that the nudge feature is enabled, the examiner broadly and reasonably interprets informing the player that a nudge is enabled as a hint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the illumination of the nudge button feature, as taught by Acres, to indicate that the nudge feature, which improves a player’s odds of winning, as taught by Dunbar and Pettie, is activated, in order to yield the predictable result of better informing players of the nudge game feature, which leads to increased player excitement and anticipation, thereby encouraging longer and more frequent plays and greater profits for game operators.
Regarding claim 16, Dunbar discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose:
indicating whether a nudge would improve the initial results of the game for the benefit of the user utilizing two nudge buttons communicated to the user on a display of the gaming machine.
Acres teaches:
a gaming machine (¶13, gaming device 10), which includes a reel nudge feature (¶28-29, a player may receive a benefit in the form of a nudge opportunity), which is activated by a player input of either a nudge up or nudge down button (¶28-29, Fig. 8A, to nudge the reels the player activates either nudge up or nudge buttons 290, 295), and wherein the gaming device may provide an illuminated text area to provide helpful information to a player (¶28, an indication that a nudge would improve the initial results of the game for the benefit of the user utilizing two nudge buttons communicated to the user on a display of the gaming machine (¶28, touchscreen 275 can help implement a nudge feature by providing information via text area 277 to the player that the nudge feature is activated).
Although, Acres does not specifically teach that the provided information indicates that the nudge would improve the player’s outcome, where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (See MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, the text area 277, as taught by Acres, which functionally capable of displaying text, would clearly be capable of displaying text indicating that use of the nudge feature would improve the player’s outcome.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the text assistance, as taught by Acres, to indicate that the nudge feature, which improves a player’s odds of winning, as taught by Dunbar and Pettie, is activated, in order to yield the predictable result of better informing players of the nudge game feature, which leads to increased player excitement and anticipation, thereby encouraging longer and more frequent plays and greater profits for game operators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recitation of generic computing components (e.g., a memory, a processor, etc.), which are part of a generic computer, takes the claims out of the capability of a human (See Remarks, pg. 8). The US Supreme Court and the CAFC have ruled over and over again that the mere recitation of generic computer components will not make the claims eligible without “significantly more.” Yes, Applicant does recite generic computer components performing certain steps. But the point of the rejection is that the steps could be performed by a person using pen and paper. Mere recitation of generic computing components will not rescue the claims.
Applicant argues that the claims provide improvements, such as improved accessibility, reduced hardware complexity and faster gameplay (See Remarks, pg. 8, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant’s alleged problems are not technical problems. The claimed invention does not solve a problem that arises due to technology. Applicant may have an improved abstract idea that improves accessibility, reduces hardware complexity and provides faster gameplay. But the abstract idea does not solve a technical problem. And a new abstract idea, regardless of how great it is, is still an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” In this case, Applicant has merely implemented an abstract idea using a generic computer. This is not considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision was handed down.
Applicant argues that the claimed nudge logic is not an abstract mathematical calculation (See Remarks, pgs. 8-9). The examiner agrees, however, the nudge logic, as currently construed, is an abstract idea which can be performed in the human mind, using nothing more than pen and paper. Therefore, the nudge logic as claimed is considered an abstract idea which falls in to the category of Mental Processes, without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that, in light of Enfish the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because software claims are not inherently abstract (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality itself (i.e., a self-referential table). Here, the instant claims are directed to rules and instructions related to playing of a wagering game and related mental steps. The limitations are therefore drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, which the courts have repeatedly held be abstract ideas. Unlike Enfish, the instant claims do not improve the function of a computer, processor, memory or the communication protocol. These generic computer elements are used as a tool to perform the steps of the claims, without any additional elements which add "significantly more" than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly found prior art reference discussed above.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights