The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/26 has been entered.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A method comprising:
receiving, from an electronic gaming device, a player account identifier and a session report, wherein the electronic gaming device is associated with a paytable;
determining, based on the player account identifier, a gaming history associated with the player account identifier;
receiving, from the electronic gaming device, an indication of a game outcome associated with the paytable;
determining, based on the indication of the game outcome, the gaming history, and the session report, an expected player action;
receiving from the electronic gaming device, image data of a player captured by an image capture device of the electronic gaming device; and
determining, based on the image data, a player volatility preference; and
automatically changing, based on the expected player action and a player volatility preference, the paytable to a different paytable
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mental processes, as all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could receive player account identifier, session report, determine a gaming history associated with the player account identifier, receive an indication of the game outcome associated with the paytable (such as viewing the display screen of the game), determine an expected player action based on the indication of the game outcome, the gaming history, and the session report, and manually change the paytable to a different paytable.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
An electronic gaming device and image data captured by an image capture device, as well as “automatically” performing a task is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
An electronic gaming device and image data captured by an image capture device, as well as “automatically” performing a task does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at 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.
The dependent claims are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker1 (US 20070087818) in view of Walker2 (US 20020147040) in view of
In claims 1, 8, and 15 Walker1 discloses
Receiving from an electronic gaming device, a player account identifier (paragraph 65, paragraph 128 discloses a tracking card, see figure 6A which shows tracking of players and their status) and a session report (paragraph 133 discloses a session database. The information from the session database is retrieved as disclosed in paragraph 181) wherein the electronic gaming device is associated with a paytable (paragraph 285)
Determining, based on the player account identifier, a gaming history associated with the player account identifier (paragraph 168, figure 6A)
Receiving, from the electronic gaming device, an indication of a game outcome associated with the paytable (paragraph 27. Each wager results in an outcome, which is then shown in the graph of figure 10. Paragraph 264 teaches tracking game indicia as well, such that players may determine a number of slot machine reel symbols, cards, etc. accumulated while negative)
Receiving image data of the player captured by an image capture device of the electronic gaming device (paragraph 128, “some examples of an input device include […] a video camera, a motion detector, a digital camera…”. As this is an “input device” the video camera or digital camera or motion detector would be of the player. However even if this were not the case, Official notice is taken that a video camera receiving inputs from a player would do so by taking image data of the player, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Walker1 with this well known technique in order to allow for the player’s motion to be used as inputs)
Walker1 does not disclose determining, based on the indication of the game outcome, the gaming history, player volatility preference determined based on the image data, and the session report, an expected player action, and automatically changing, based on the expected player action and the image data, the paytable to a different paytable, however Walker2 discloses automatically altering the pay table of a device in response to a player having a losing trend, as well as the number of pulls remaining and the credit deficit of the player (paragraph 281. With respect to “player volatility preference determined based on image data”, it is first noted by examiner that the terminology “based on” is extremely broad, and only requires a relationship, even tangential, between the image data and player volatility preferences. In this case, this language is taught by “a player may be halfway through an contract and have negative 200 accumulated credits. The player might therefore lose all hope of winning enough to overcome the 200-credit deficit and so lose interest in the contract. Therefore, on one embodiment, a player who is well below a threshold number of accumulated credits for winning may play for an altered paytable. Low paying outcomes may be eliminated, while the likelihood of achieving high paying outcomes may increase”. This shows a player preference towards high volatility in response to the state of the game. As the image data of Walker1 is used to determine player inputs, and the player inputs are used to determine the state of the game, this would mean that in combination the player volatility preference is based on the image data of Walker1, or more specifically, the user inputs which are caused by the image data of Walker1.). Thus, Walker1 in view of Walker2 would teach automatically changing a pay table as taught in Walker2 in response to the tracking of Walker1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Walker1 with Walker2, as changing the paytable may reduce the chance of the player leaving, as the player may otherwise lose all hope of winning enough to overcome their deficit.
In claims 2, 9 and 16, Walker1 discloses a virtual slots machine (figure 8)
In claim 3, 10, and 17 Walker2 discloses automatically changing the paytable comprises changing the paytable to the different paytable having a different volatility (paragraph 281)
In claims 4, 11, and 18, Walker1 discloses the player account identifier is received from the electronic gaming device based on the receipt, by the electronic gaming device, of a player identifier (paragraph 128)
In claims 5, 12, and 19, Walker1 discloses the sensor data is gathered by one or more sensors wherein the one or more sensors comprise one of: a camera (paragraph 128)
In claims 6, 13, and 20, Walker1 discloses receiving, from the electronic gaming device, an indication of a wireless electronic funds transfer between a user device and the electronic gaming device (paragraph 23 discloses funds being transferred)
In claims 7 and 14, Walker1 discloses the wireless electronic funds transfer is facilitated by one or more near field communication protocols, (paragraph 128 discloses an RFID device as an input device, which would mean that it would facilitate input from the user, including funds transfers as shown in paragraph 23)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted by examiner that a majority of these arguments presented by applicant were already responded to by Examiner, and Examiner’s response was left unanswered in this response.
Applicant argues that “the human mind cannot receive anything from an electronic gaming machine, much less the claimed player account identifier and a session report nor the image data of a player”. However this information can be received, for example from a display. Further, even if that were not the case, data gathering and data output is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Applicant argues “a human cannot mentally determine a player volatility preference from image data captured by an electronic gaming device, nor can a human mentally or manually modify a paytable of an electronic gaming device”, however a human can look at an image and make a determination as to player volatility, and can modify paytables, either manually for a physical game, or by typing in a new paytable into a device. As best understood by examiner applicant is merely arguing that the existence of the electronic device in itself makes the steps impossible to perform by a human mind, whereas implementation of an abstract idea upon a general purpose computer does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that “the paytable is also an additional element”. In order for a limitation to be considered as an additional element, it would need to not be abstract. A paytable was found to be abstract in prong one of the rejection. “Paytables perform a specialized function tied directly to the operation and regulatory requirements of gaming machines. It is not a mere data structure or lookup table used for generic computation. Rather, it serves a specific role in controlling and disclosing the award structure based on gameplay outcomes, and it is often encoded with complex rules, odds, and regulatory constraints that govern how and when payouts occur. It is more than simply a static list of potential wins; it is a core part of the games system logic and mechanics and financial model, blending statistical probability, player engagement strategies, and regulatory compliance”. These limitations are by and large not claimed, and to the degree they are claimed (changing the paytable to a different paytable), the steps were found to be abstract.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed towards an improvement to the functioning of a computer, however use of a sensor merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Further, sensors is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The particulars as to how the computer uses the sensor data to make determinations as to the behavior and reaction of a player was found to be abstract.
Applicant argues that the invention integrates the exception into a particular machine. Examiner disagrees. Applicant claims “an electronic gaming device” and the only hardware positively recited within the gaming device is “a sensor”. Applicant didn’t even go so far as to claim a particular sensor, meaning that the supposed “particular machine” applicant has tied his abstract idea to amounts to effectively any machine with an input. Applicant specifically argued that “the paytable is a particular machine”. The paytable is not a machine, much less a particular one.
Applicant argues similar arguments to above related to step 2B, these arguments are not persuasive for similar reasons as above. Examiner provided a reference to the MPEP which provides case law related to the claimed generic computer.
Applicant argues that Walker1 and Walker2’s modifications are based on credit deficits and remaining plays, not on any analysis of image data to detect a player’s emotional state or physical behavior indicator, this limitation is not claimed, and appears to be the crux of applicant’s arguments. The claims currently only require that a player’s volatility preference is based on the image data in some way, shape, or form. The terminology “based on” is extremely broad, and only requires a relationship, even tangential, between the image data and player volatility preferences. In this case, this language is taught by “a player may be halfway through an contract and have negative 200 accumulated credits. The player might therefore lose all hope of winning enough to overcome the 200-credit deficit and so lose interest in the contract. Therefore, on one embodiment, a player who is well below a threshold number of accumulated credits for winning may play for an altered paytable. Low paying outcomes may be eliminated, while the likelihood of achieving high paying outcomes may increase”. This shows a player preference towards high volatility in response to the state of the game. As the image data of Walker1 is used to determine player inputs, and the player inputs are used to determine the state of the game, this would mean that in combination the player volatility preference is based on the image data of Walker1, or more specifically, the user inputs which are caused by the image data of Walker1
Applicant argues that the motivation to combine is not proper, arguing that the Office Action is creating a problem in the primary reference in order to solve the problem by incorporating the secondary reference, however the problem of a player losing hope of winning is not a problem created by Examiner, it is a common problem set forth by walker2 to solve. Applicant also appears to argue that Walker1 does not require user input, which is not true, Walker1 uses inputs, and is even relied upon for its image data based inputs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715