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 Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 5 and 18 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant argues that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1 because the claim is allegedly directed to a specific system (Remarks, filed 02/11/2026, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is to identify whether the claim merely recites a judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04.II. Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including managing rules for a wagering game); see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II) and mental processes (including determining and calculating). For example, the limitation “provide, to the player and via the user interface, an offer to make a secondary wager game” recites the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including managing rules for a wagering game). See rejection of claims below for further analysis of the limitations reciting abstract ideas.
Secondly, Applicant argues that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 because the claim is allegedly integrated into a practical application and solves a specific technical problem (of “generat[ing] variable, odds-based gaming outcomes by dynamically reconfiguring stored die face values prior to random selection, without requiring physical changes to the gaming hardware”) at least by requiring a stored lookup table and a stored random number generator (Remarks, filed 02/11/2026, pp. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specified limitations appear to instead recite generic computing components performing routine functions and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner further notes the Office typically considers such a solution should be a technological improvement to a technological problem, and nothing in the claims appears to provide such a technological improvement to the raised alleged problem. Instead, the claims appear to recite generic computing components performing routine functions and to generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thirdly, Applicant argues claim 1 is eligible under Step 2B because the claim allegedly embodies an inventive concept and is not directed to a routine or conventional use of a generic computer, such as by “requir[ing] a specific ordered combination that involves retrieving stored die face values that are then used by the random number generator to resolve the secondary wager outcome” (Remarks, filed 02/11/2026, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea(s) using generic computing devices (such as “a processor circuit” and “a memory”) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (such as a random number generator generating a number or a lookup table acting as a simple, routine/conventional database), which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, pending claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See rejection as presented in detail 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; a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: provide, to a 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; and alter or not alter, based on the alteration output from the secondary wager game, the output of the primary wager game.” The underlined limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including managing rules for a wagering game) or mental processes (including determining and calculating steps). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim recites the additional elements of a user interface, a processor circuit, a memory, a random number generator, and a lookup table, all of which are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract ideas identified above. Therefore, the recitation of these additional elements 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 and a lookup table are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, 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 additional elements of a user interface, a processor circuit, a memory, a random number generator, and a lookup table 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 6-17 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 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 ideas 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 ideas. Thereby, claims 2-4 and 6-17 are also patent ineligible.
Conclusion
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