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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks, filed 06/17/2026, pp. 8-10) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the underlying technology is improved, and a new and improved level of gameplay is provided due to, inter alia, the identification of a player and their amount of credits, the offer to play a secondary wager game which may alter the outcome of the primary wager game, and updating an electronic record (Remarks, p. 5). Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts these are all directed to routine and conventional functionality within the technology or technical field of electronic gaming machines and wagering games. Additionally, although the claimed implementation of a secondary wager game altering the outcome of a primary wager game (i.e., at least the limitations of selecting a value corresponding to a respective face value of a die by generating a random number and dynamically modifying a face value based on previously calculated odds) appears to be novel and non-obvious, this represents a set of rules for conducting a wagering game rather than any technological solution to a technological problem or any other improvement to the underlying technology; the mere act of using a secondary game to alter the outcome of a primary game is well-known, conventional, and routine within the field.
Applicant next argues that the basic fact pattern of the instant application is “analogous to Ex parte Berndt Burghard (Appl. No. 14/010,227, decided by the PTAB in 2019),” asserting that “[i]n the instant case, the secondary wager game is analogous to the above-mentioned bonus game play in that the secondary wager game is a bonus feature which gives the player another chance to win the primary wager game, thus improving the underlying technology of gaming machines” (Remarks, pp. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to pages 19-20 of the referenced PTAB decision, which identifies that the limitations drawn to the particular “improved animation” techniques represent the improvement to the underlying technology—not the mere presence of a bonus game. Furthermore, Examiner is unable to find any analogous technological improvement in the instant application.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained. See rejection of claims below.
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 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, analyzed as the representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites “A system…” which falls within the “machine” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] Claim 1 recites “A system comprising:
a user interface comprising a display and at least one input device that accepts player input for controlling gaming functions;
a processor circuit; and
a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
process electronic output of a reader to identify a player and an amount of credits belonging to the player;
provide, to the player and via the user interface, an outcome of a primary wager game played by the player;
provide, to the player and via the user interface, an offer to make a secondary wager game that comprises an alteration output that alters the outcome of the primary wager game, wherein the secondary wager game is performed by selecting one of a plurality of values corresponding to respective face values of a die by generating, using a random number generator stored in the memory, a random number that selects one of the face values;
receive, from the player and via the user interface, an input that causes the secondary wager game to be performed;
determine the alteration output that is associated with the secondary wager game, wherein determining the alteration output includes calculating, with the processor circuit, odds of improving the outcome of the primary wager game, determining a secondary wager game cost based on the calculated odds, wherein determining the secondary wager game cost comprises accessing, from the memory, a lookup table that associates at least a dealer hand value and a player hand value with the secondary wager game cost, and dynamically modifying, in the memory, at least one face value of a die used in the secondary wager game based on the calculated odds prior to generating the random number that selects one of the face values;
alter or not alter, based on the alteration output from the secondary wager game, the outcome of the primary wager game;
update an electronic record reflecting the amount of credits belonging to the player by a first amount when the outcome of the primary wager game is altered; and
update the electronic record by a second amount when the outcome of the primary wager game is not altered.”
The underlined limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes (evaluation, determination, or calculation) or methods of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities or following rules or instructions) and fundamental economic practices (rules for conducting a wagering game). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim recites the additional bolded elements of a program executing on a computing device for performing the method steps, wherein the computing device and executed computer program are recited at a high level of generality (a “system” with a “user interface,” a “display,” a “processor circuit,” and a “memory”) and merely automate the identifying, providing, receiving, determining, calculating, accessing, altering, and updating steps. Therefore, this additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Additionally and/or alternatively, the additional elements of a random number generator, a lookup table, and an electronic record are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (including data gathering), which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the identified bolded additional elements, including a computer program executing on a computing device for performing the method steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, representative claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 16-17 are dependent on representative claim 1 and include all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea(s) as those recited in the independent claim or contain limitations drawn to generic computer components and/or reciting extra solution activities. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the representative claim, no claim contains an additional element to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or to render an inventive concept that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Thereby, claims 2-4 and 16-17 are also patent ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights