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 12/22/2025, claims 1-19 remain pending, of which, 1, 9 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 1-19 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 claims 9 and 18, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A computer implemented method for managing an asynchronous multiplayer gambling game, wherein at least two players access to a gaming session asynchronously, the method comprising:
assigning a randomized data array to the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game, the randomized data array at least defining a result of the gaming session with respect to each player in terms of a maximum number of players allowed to access the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes),
executing the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game with respect to a player accessing the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game until a number of players accessing the gaming session reaches the maximum number of players allowed to access the gaming session, the execution of the gaming session with respect to each player comprises an assignment of a game entity and a determination of the result of the gaming session with respect to the player based on the randomized data array (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes),
generating, in response to completing the gaming session with respect to the player, a message to the player, the message comprising information on the result of the gaming session in accordance with data defined in the randomized data array with respect to the player (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
wherein a visualization of the game entity assigned to each player in the gaming session is performed by differing characteristics of the game entity visualized to a first player from characteristics of the game entity visualized to at least one other player (Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 9 and 18) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a server, computer readable storage medium, a plurality of gaming terminals, 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. Following rules and/or instructions. The claims recite a series of rules governing participation in a multiplayer gambling game, including assigning a randomized data array, determining a player’s result based on the array, executing a gaming session until a number of players is reached and generating a message conveying the results. These steps constitute following rules or instructions for playing a game, which is an abstract idea which is included in the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. The claims merely implement these rules utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements performing routine functions and/or insignificant extra-solution activity; and/or
B. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “assigning a randomized data array to the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game”). The claims recite operations such as assigning a randomized data array, determining results for players and generating and a message for players. These steps constitute evaluation, assignment and determination, which are abstract ideas which are included in the Mental Processes grouping according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. These steps are considered mental processes because they can be performed conceptually in the human mind or with pen and paper. Further, the claims are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements performing routine functions and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19:
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 Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes 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 1-19 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 server, computer readable storage medium, a plurality of gaming terminals”, 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 server, computer readable storage medium and a plurality of gaming terminals are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2011/0111836, which discloses that elements such as a server, computer readable storage medium and a plurality of gaming terminals are well known conventional devices used to control the overall operation of a gaming system (¶3-4). 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) 1-5, 9-13 and 17-19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montross et al (U.S. 2012/0122534) in view of Walker et al (U.S. 2016/0260290).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17-18 and 19, Montross discloses:
a computer implemented method for managing a multiplayer gambling game, wherein at least two players access to a gaming session (¶66), the method comprising:
assigning a randomized data array to the gaming session of the multiplayer gambling game (¶43, ¶58, the gaming device transmits a game outcome request to the central server, the central server independently selects and transmits a game outcome from a finite pool of outcomes to the gaming device), the randomized data array at least defining a result of the gaming session with respect to each player in terms of a maximum number of players allowed to access the gaming session of the multiplayer gambling game (¶58, ¶74, the game outcome is transmitted to the requesting gaming device from the finite pool and the selected outcome is flagged as used, thereby preventing the outcome from being subsequently being selected (i.e., limiting the number of players who can receive outcomes from the pool of outcomes to a maximum number which is equal to the number of outcomes within the finite pool of outcomes)),
executing the gaming session of the multiplayer gambling game with respect to a player accessing the gaming session of the multiplayer gambling game until a number of players accessing the gaming session reaches the maximum number of players allowed to access the gaming session (¶43, ¶58, ¶74, outcomes from the finite pool of outcomes being provided to gaming devices playing the game and marked as used, wherein outcomes are provided until all the outcomes of the finite pool of outcomes are marked as used), the execution of the gaming session with respect to each player comprises an assignment of a game entity (¶87-88, the gaming device allows the player to select an individual poker hand to play (i.e., the poker hand is assigned to the player based on the player’s selection)) and a determination of the result of the gaming session with respect to the player based on the randomized data array (¶87-89, the results of the poker hand are based on the selected outcome from the finite pool of outcomes),
generating, in response to completing the gaming session with respect to the player, a message to the player, the message comprising information on the result of the gaming session in accordance with data defined in the randomized data array with respect to the player (¶92, the gaming device displays the poker hand associated with the selected outcome to the player and provides any award associated with the selected outcome);
wherein a visualization of the game entity assigned to each player in the gaming session is performed by differing characteristics of the game entity visualized to a first player from characteristics of the game entity visualized to at least one other player (¶83-86, each player receives a different presentation of a poker hand based on the selected outcome).
However, Montross does not specifically disclose that:
the multiplayer game is an asynchronous multiplayer game.
Walker teaches:
an asynchronous multiplayer gaming system (abstract), wherein two or more players participate in an asynchronous gaming session (¶251-252).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate Walker’s asynchronous gameplay model into Montross’s finite pool system in order to yield the predictable result of providing players a shared gaming experience without requiring simultaneous participation, thereby increasing flexibility and encoring more frequent and longer plays, while also guaranteeing a fixed payback percentage for game operators.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed above, Montross further discloses that:
a generation of the randomized data array is performed in response to one of:
a detection of a first player allowed to access to the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game (¶43, ¶58, the player begins a gaming session and the gaming device transmits the game outcome request to the central server and the central server independently selects and transmits a game outcome from a finite pool of outcomes to the gaming device);
setting up a depleting pool of data arrays for the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game applicable in a plurality of gaming sessions of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game (¶43, ¶58, ¶74, outcomes from the finite pool of outcomes being provided to gaming devices playing the game and marked as used, wherein outcomes are provided until all the outcomes of the finite pool of outcomes are marked as used).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed however, Montross does not specifically discloses that:
the player is randomly assigned to the gaming session among a plurality of gaming sessions.
Walker teaches:
an asynchronous multiplayer gaming system (abstract), wherein players are randomly assigned to the gaming session among a plurality of gaming sessions (¶145, casino server 102 forms a group of players who have similar gambling preferences).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing to utilize the asynchronous gameplay, as taught by Walker, using the finite pool of outcomes, as taught by Montross, in order to yield the predictable result of providing players a shared gaming experience without requiring players to be present at the same time, which encourages more frequent and longer plays, while also guaranteeing a fixed payback percentage for game operators.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed above, Montross further discloses that:
the player is requested to select the game entity for the gaming session (¶87, the gaming device displays one or more playing cards from one or more poker hands and enables the player to select a poker hand to play as an active hand).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed above, Montross further discloses that:
the game entity is linked to a value in the randomized data array defining the result of the gaming session (¶87, the hand of cards is associated with the outcome selected from the finite pool of outcomes).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montross et al (U.S. 2012/0122534) in view of Walker et al (U.S. 2016/0260290) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Crumby (U.S. 6,533,664).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed however, neither specifically discloses that:
the randomized data array is associated with metadata descriptive of events occurring during the gaming session of the asynchronous multiplayer gambling game.
Crumbly teaches:
a gaming system (abstract), wherein a randomized data array is assigned to a gaming session and is associated with metadata which is descriptive of events occurring during the gaming session (2:15-45, central computer system generates batches of random seed numbers (metadata) which each gaming machine uses to generate a random number which is used to select an associated outcome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing to integrate the random seeding, as taught by Crumbly, into the gaming system taught by Montross and Walker, in order to provide game operators the ability to more easily verify game outcomes and avoid errors or cheating (See Crumbly, 3:18-36).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Montross and Walker disclose that which is discussed however, neither specifically discloses that:
the metadata descriptive of events occurring during the gaming session is defined based on a random value used for determining the events occurring during the gaming session in a deterministic manner.
Crumbly teaches:
a gaming system (abstract), wherein a randomized data array is assigned to a gaming session and the metadata is defined based on a random value used for determining the events occurring during the gaming session in a deterministic manner (2:15-45, central computer system generates batches of random seed numbers (metadata) which each gaming machine uses to generate a random number which is used to select an associated outcome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing to integrate the random seeding, as taught by Crumbly, into the gaming system taught by Montross and Walker, in order to provide game operators the ability to more easily verify game outcomes and avoid errors or cheating (See Crumbly, 3:18-36).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Montross, Walker and Crumbly disclose that which is discussed above, Montross further discloses that:
the events occurring during the gaming session are output to each player by controlling an output of a terminal device of each player (¶92, the gaming device displays the poker hand associated with the selected outcome to the player and provides any award associated with the selected outcome).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/22/2025, 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 claims reflect a technological improvement, namely, enhancing security and preventing collusion by executing “the game so that the game entities visualized to different players are scrambled by changing the characteristics of the game entity between different player” (See Remarks, pgs. 7-8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Varying the visual characteristics (e.g., color, appearance, etc.) to obscure player identity, is a function related to the presentation of information, rather than a technical improvement to computer functionality. The claimed visualization merely changes what is displayed to each player and does not improve the operation of the computer, network or gaming system itself. Varying displayed content is considered non-technical insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the claims cannot be performed in the human mind (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claim recites steps such as assigning data arrays, determining results and generating messages, all of which represent abstract data manipulation and information presentation. These steps are performed by a generic computer executing stored instructions, which does not remove the claim from the mental process grouping. According to the 2019 PEG, even when a computer performs the steps, the underlying concept remains abstract if the computer is used merely as a tool. The instant claims utilize non-special purpose generic computing elements as tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Montross does not disclose “executing the gaming session …until a number of players accessing the gaming session reaches the maximum number of players allowed to access the gaming session” the newly added limitation” (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Montross explicitly teaches a finite pool of outcomes that are distributed to players equal to the number of available outcomes, wherein a gaming session continues until the pool is depleted (¶43, ¶58, ¶74), which corresponds to the claimed execution “until a number of players accessing the gaming session reaches the maximum number allowed”.
Applicant argues that Montross does not disclose “wherein a visualization of the game entity assigned to each player in the gaming session is performed by differing characteristics of the game entity visualized to a first player from characteristics of the game entity visualized to at least one other player” (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Montross discloses outcomes (e.g., poker hands) are displayed to each player differently, which inherently results in different visual characteristics of game entities (¶83-86, each hand is displayed using a different deck of cards).
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