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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 08/07/2025.
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 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic activities directed to hedging (wagering games are recognized as a form of hedging) and a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a system or method claim which include sufficient machine elements performing the gaming steps. As per step 2B the claim(s) recite(s) “receive, from a client application executing on a client device, a wager for a play of a game; responsive to receiving the wager, cause presentation of a graphical user interface via the client application executing on the client device, the graphical user interface comprising: a non-numerical graphical indicator of a virtual object representing a score for the play of the game; and a first interactive element that, when interacted with, is configured to cause the score for the play of the game to be updated; responsive to a first interaction with the first interactive element: increase the score according to the first updated rate, and cause the client application to present a first animation of the non-numerical graphical indicator dynamically increasing an area of the virtual object via the graphical user interface, such that the first animation of the non-numerical graphical indicator is synchronized with increases in the score for the play of the game; responsive to determining that the first interaction with the first interactive element has ceased: initiate a timer to count passage of time to an expiration threshold, cause the client application to present, via the graphical user interface, a second animation of the timer synchronized with the passage of time, and present, via the graphical user interface, a second interactive element that, when interacted with, causes the play of the game to terminate; responsive to an expiration of the timer, adjust a credit balance based on the wager and the score of the play of the game; determine that a bonus condition has been satisfied responsive to the score for the play of the game exceeding a threshold; and adjust the credit balance responsive to determining that the bonus condition has been satisfied.” which is directed towards a wagering game comprising a first interactive object which is interacted with in order to increase a score of the game and in response to interaction ceasing start a count down with a second interface object presented which if interacted with before the countdown finishes will adjust a credit balance based on the score and a wager including based on bonus conditions with bonus awards. Amended features include rules regarding timing wherein a game ends based on a timer. Further dependent claims include additional rules for resetting or adjusting the timers, design for the interfaces, and when a wager is lost. As per the hedging portion see bolded language concerning a wager and award in credits paid out based on the wager. Specifically the game functions as a financial obligation comprising hedging wherein a player wagers on a result of the game in order to have the chance to receive a financial award. As per the mental step see language regarding determining, in response to, and basic math updates to the game comprising adding or determining values or counting. These mental steps involve game rules which an individual can perform by observing the state of the game and applying a corresponding rule. This includes determining what score to provide based on a game action, timing functions as a basic counter, and determining what outcome to apply to a game at a given observed game step. Specifically the steps of observation and making determinations based on established rules are directed towards mental steps and can be performed in the mind by an individual based on outcomes produced. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because remain directed towards a wagering game which is a form of hedging and a mental process in the form of game rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because determining result for hedging based on displayed state of the game or player actions or performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome or actions. Specifically observing the state of the game and applying a rule accordingly remains a mental step and no recited steps beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity are recited that cannot be performed in the mind. Specifically following rules can be performed in the mind. Additional elements are addressed below regarding the display and hardware portions. As per amended timer features Marr et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0332073 A1) teaches "because conventional multiplayer gameplay sessions typically end after a predefined time period has elapsed, or after a prescribed game event has occurred (or game objective has been reached)" that it is conventional in the art to include a timer function to end a game (paragraphs [0002] and [0006]). The outputting of this information is also well-known means to inform individual of the amount of time they have to play a game. Therefore the action of ending a game after a certain period of time is a conventional feature. The act of ending a game is a rule for the function of a game and does not provide an improvement to the function of the machine beyond playing a game according to the rules. Specifically most games include an end condition and using a timer is well-known and understood including in the computing art to put a realistic end state of the game and an element of challenge for the play.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitations "system, comprising: one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to:", "cause presentation of a graphical user interface", a timer in a game, and other limitations directed towards determining game outcomes or displaying results. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are convention activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated images or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application. Further the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. This includes the act of animating themed game outcomes to act in a certain manner since this is output of a feature of the game and directed towards extra solution activity since the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. Specifically in this case the actual outputted image of the game is extra solution activity that does not provide a practical application since the information to be outputted in part of the identified exceptions above and having a computer output that information is a conventional step in the game. Outputting a particular theme or themed image of the game is not significantly more and is directed towards a design step. Marr et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0332073 A1) teaches "because conventional multiplayer gameplay sessions typically end after a predefined time period has elapsed, or after a prescribed game event has occurred (or game objective has been reached)" that it is conventional in the art to include a timer function to end a game (paragraphs [0002] and [0006]). The outputting of this information is also well-known means to inform individual of the amount of time they have to play a game. Therefore the action of ending a game after a certain period of time is a conventional feature. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are allowed over prior art but rejected under 101 above. Specifically the combination is non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous 101 rejection is improper because amended features provide a practical application regarding the use of a timer to end a game which is argued would reducing computer resources. However examiner notes that the use of a timer to end a game is a well-known feature in the art that goes to the function of the rules of a game. See Marr et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0332073 A1) teaches "because conventional multiplayer gameplay sessions typically end after a predefined time period has elapsed, or after a prescribed game event has occurred (or game objective has been reached)" that it is conventional in the art to include a timer function to end a game (paragraphs [0002] and [0006]). The outputting of this information is also well-known means to inform individual of the amount of time they have to play a game. Therefore the action of ending a game after a certain period of time is a conventional feature. The act of ending a game is a rule for the function of a game and does not provide an improvement to the function of the machine beyond playing a game according to the rules. Specifically most games include an end condition and using a timer is well-known and understood including in the computing art to put a realistic end state of the game and an element of challenge for the play. Applicant’s arguments appear to argue that the use of this conventional feature provides the practical application. Specifically hardware resource use is reduced because the game ends which would be the case for the known prior art. Specifically if using the conventional known feature of timed games then the resources used would naturally be reduced since the game has ended. Applicant’s arguments do not include features of a new practical application beyond what is commonly understood. How does the use of a timer differ over the conventional art for example. As per amendments to new animations this was previously addressed in step 2B and maintained. A themed animation does not provide a non-conventional solution over the prior art when it goes towards a theme of how the game is presented and not new unconventional use of hardware. Therefore at this time examiner maintains the 101 with the amended features addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 12/16/2025