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 Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 1/13/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a user contribution event:
enable a user to contribute an item, and associate the contributed item with an award,
responsive to an occurrence of a contribution escrow event, escrow a separate amount in association with the contributed item, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
cause at least the contributed item to be provided to a player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event, and
cause at least a portion of the escrowed amount to be provided to the user. Claim 11 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a user contribution event:
enable a user to contribute an amount of funds, and associate the contributed amount of funds with a progressive award,
responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award increment event:
increase a value of the progressive award, and
escrow a separate amount in association with the contributed amount of funds, and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
cause the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event, and
cause at least a portion of the escrowed amount to be provided to the user.Claim 17 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a random occurrence of an award triggering event at a first point in time when a first amount of funds are escrowed in association with an element of value contributed by a user:
cause a first award inclusive of the element of value to be provided to a first player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event, and
cause at least a portion of the first amount of funds to be provided to the user, and
responsive to the random occurrence of the award triggering event at a second, subsequent point in time when a greater, second amount of funds are escrowed in association with the element of value contributed by the user:
cause a second award inclusive of the element of value to be provided to a second player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event, and
cause at least a portion of the second amount of funds to be provided to the user.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "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." (Emphasis added)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1, 11, and 17 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Peltz et al., US 20110009197, discloses that players making wagers to initiate game play of a wagering game is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 15);
Rader et al., US 20190287342 discloses that progressive prize opportunities are well known in the art and are typically available if an additional wager is placed before the start of the game for the player to be eligible for the progressive prize. Progressive systems offer a prize value that “progresses” or grows with the play of each game, with a portion of the amount wagered for each game being contributed to the progressive prize across multiple EGMs connected to the progressive system until the prize is won (paragraph 4);
Jackson, US 20100203958 discloses that it is well-known that basic progressive methods entail a portion of each wager executed at a linked gaming machine funds a progressive jackpot, the jackpot being paid to the player who receives a triggering event in a base game (paragraph 8);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses 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; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson, US 20100203958 (Jackson)Regarding Claim 1. Jackson discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a processor.); and
a memory device (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a memory device.) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a user contribution event:
enable a user to contribute an item, and associate the contributed item with an award (Abstract. When a user makes a wager, a portion of the wager is contributed to a progressive pool that can be won as an award. The item is interpreted as the portion of monetary value a player wagers that is contributed and associated with a progressive award. The wager is interpreted as a user contribution event.),
responsive to an occurrence of a contribution escrow event, escrow a separate amount in association with the contributed item (Abstract; para 50, 57-59, 63, 69. A portion of a player’s wager is contributed to a pool. Depending on the size of the wager, the size of the amount is put in a pool. The contribution escrow event is interpreted as the determination that a portion of a player’s wager is to be put in a pool (escrow) that can be used for providing a progressive award to a player. The separate amount is interpreted as a portion that is separate from the actual wager the player has made.)
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event (Abstract, para 55-59. An award triggering event is interpreted as a player winning a progressive jackpot.):
cause at least the contributed item to be provided to a player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event (Abstract, para 55-56. When a player achieves the progressive reward, his/she is provided with the award, which comprises a portion of contributed funds for funding the progressive reward.), and
cause at least a portion of the escrowed amount to be provided to the user (Abstract, para 55-56, 61. A portion from the wagers that was contributed to the pool for funding the progressive rewards is provided to the winner.).
Regarding Claim 2. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the association of the contributed item with the award comprises a creation of the award (Abstract. The funds contributed is what is used for creating a progressive reward.).
Regarding Claim 3. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the contribution escrow event occurs in association with a wager placed on a play of a game to win the award and the escrowed amount comprises a portion of the wager (Abstract. A portion of wager is contributed to a pool for funding a progressive award.).
Regarding Claim 5. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the award comprises a progressive award (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 5, wherein the contributed item has a value corresponding to a startup value of the progressive award (Abstract, para 50, 55-58. The minimum threshold value for providing a progressive reward is interpreted as a startup value.).
Regarding Claim 7. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 5, wherein the contributed item comprises one of a plurality of items that collectively have a value corresponding to a startup value of the progressive award (para 50. Each of the plurality of wagers in which funds are contributed towards the progressive rewards is interpreted as collectively having a value corresponding to the startup value for the progressive reward).
Regarding Claim 10. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the contributed item comprises an award previously won by the user in association with a prior play of a game (para 50. Funds from wagers are contributed towards the progressive rewards. This means that the funds being contributed could be fund won from prior game play. In other words, since players can achieve game outcomes in prior games in which the player is provided with funds as a reward, those same funds could then be used for future wagers which would be used for contributing to the progressive reward.)
Regarding Claim 11. Jackson discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a processor.); and
a memory device (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a memory device.) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a user contribution event:
enable a user to contribute an amount of funds, and associate the contributed amount of funds with a progressive (Abstract. When a user makes a wager, a portion of the wager is contributed to a progressive pool that can be won as an award. The item is interpreted as the portion of monetary value a player wagers that is contributed and associated with a progressive award. The wager is interpreted as a user contribution event.),
responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award increment event:
increase a value of the progressive award, and escrow a separate amount in association with the contributed amount of funds (Abstract, para 55. As player continued to wager, more funds from the wagers are used to increment the progressive award. The separate amount is interpreted as a portion that is separate from the actual wager the player has made.), and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event (Abstract, para 55-59. An award triggering event is interpreted as a player winning a progressive jackpot.):
cause the progressive award to be provided to a player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event (Abstract, para 55-56. When a player achieves the progressive reward, his/she is provided with the award, which comprises a portion of contributed funds for funding the progressive reward.), and
cause at least a portion of the escrowed amount to be provided to the user (Abstract, para 55-56, 61. A portion from the wagers that was contributed to the pool for funding the progressive rewards is provided to the winner.).
Regarding Claim 12. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the association of the contributed item with the progressive award comprises a creation of the progressive award (Abstract. The funds contributed is what is used for creating a progressive reward.).
Regarding Claim 13. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the progressive award increment event occurs in association with a wager placed on a play of a game to win the progressive award (Abstract, para 55).
Regarding Claim 14. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 13, wherein the increase of the value of the progressive award and the escrowed amount are each based on a different portion of the wager (Abstract, para 55. Since wager amounts can be different amounts, this means the increase in the value of the progressive award and the amount put into the pool are also different.).
Regarding Claim 15. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the contributed amount of funds comprises a startup value of the progressive award (Abstract, para 50, 55-58. The minimum threshold value for providing a progressive reward is interpreted as a startup value.).
Regarding Claim 16. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the contributed amount of funds comprises a portion of a startup value of the progressive award (Abstract, para 50, 55-58).
Regarding Claim 17. Jackson discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a processor.); and
a memory device (Abstract. A central server used for implementing game play is interpreted as comprising a memory device.) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a random occurrence of an award triggering event (para 53. Outcomes are triggered randomly. This means that award triggering events, such as winning a progressive reward is a random occurrence.) at a first point in time when a first amount of funds are escrowed in association with an element of value contributed by a user (Abstract, para 55):
cause a first award inclusive of the element of value to be provided to a first player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering event (para 52-58), and
cause at least a portion of the first amount of funds to be provided to the user (para 52-58. Players that win the first progressive rewards are provided with the first progressive reward.), and
responsive to the random occurrence of the award triggering event (para 53. Outcomes are triggered randomly. This means that award triggering events, such as winning a progressive reward is a random occurrence.) at a second, subsequent point in time when a greater, second amount of funds are escrowed in association with the element of value contributed by the user (Abstract, para 55):
cause a second award inclusive of the element of value to be provided to a second player associated with the occurrence of the award triggering user (para 52-58. Players that win the second subsequent progressive rewards are provided with the second subsequent progressive reward.), and
cause at least a portion of the second amount of funds to be provided to the (para 52-58. Players that win the second progressive rewards are provided with the second progressive reward.).
Regarding Claim 18. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 17, wherein the first award has a first value and the second award has a second, different value (para 52-58. The value amount for the first progressive rewards can be different from the second progressive reward.).
Regarding Claim 19. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 17, wherein the first player and the second player are different players (para 52-58. Different players can win their respective progressive reward.).
Regarding Claim 20. Jackson discloses the system of Claim 17, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to escrow funds in association with the element of value in association with wagers placed (Abstract, para 52-58. The element of value is interpreted as the funds, such as credits, used for wagering in a game that would be contributed to a pool for funding the progressive rewards.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that the claimed invention provides a solution to the recognized problem with individuals having no ability to back awards and with providing unwanted or unneeded items to individuals as awards by enabling individuals to bankroll awards in a way not previously technically achieved while providing that the upside of at least a portion of unsuccessful wagers placed on that award is allocated to the contributing individuals which would therefore offer an avenue to enable individuals to dispense of unwanted or unneeded items in a way that may be potentially even more lucrative than initially winning the item in the first place based on how the system interacts with other users going forward (starting at page 7 to the top of page 8).
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. The applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose of there being a technical problem in which the claimed invention is providing a technical solution. Instead, the Examiner believes the claims fail to sufficiently convey significantly more than an abstract idea carried out by generic computing elements, which the courts have repeated held is not patent eligible absent evidence of technological improvements to the functioning of the computing element. In this case, while the applicant is making cursory remarks regarding there being improvements in the technology, there lacks evidence provided beyond general-purpose computer components and concepts (which the Examiner had provided using prior art above), for implementing an abstract idea (ie: “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”)
Furthermore, the Examiner does not believe such an “improvement” is not an actual improvement to the actual technology (ie: gaming machine for providing awards) because the claimed invention pertains to providing funds to players which would require the use of payment devices (para 116-117, 121-122). In other words, the claimed invention’s ability to dispense of unwanted or unneeded items is done so using general-purpose computer components.
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
With regard to the prior art, Applicant states: “Applicant submits that while Jackson generally describes a "progressive jackpot gaming system" having a pool that can include primary jackpots and secondary jackpots that can be won by players, Jackson only describes that the players that have wagered can win such jackpots (see Abstract, paragraphs [0039] and [0049] to [0056]). More specifically, while Jackson describes that a progressive jackpot is initially set at a "predetermined reset value" (e.g., with "initial seed money") and that the progressive jackpot is "incremented by portions of the wager" by a player (see paragraph [0050]), Jackson does not teach or suggest a user contribution event that enables a user to contribute an item and that such an item is associated with an award, (i.e., that a user's contribution of an item sets the initial value of an award). Moreover, the wager by a player in Jackson does not teach or suggest the escrow of a separate amount in association with the contributed item (responsive to an occurrence of a contribution escrow event) at least because the wager in Jackson is only used as "additive funds" to the progressive jackpot and is not associated with a contributed item as a separate amount.”
The Examiner disagrees. The separate amount is interpreted as a portion that is separate from the actual wager the player has made. In other words, since a player can make a wager, a “separate amount” of the wager made is being contributed to a pool (escrow) in which can be provided as an award.
“Furthermore, Jackson describes that when there is a winning event, the primary jackpot of a progressive jackpot can be awarded to a first player and a secondary jackpot can be awarded to "at least one player on the networked system different from the first player" that "may be randomly selected from among networked players active in play of the networked system" (see paragraphs [0051] to [0053]). However, Jackson does not teach or suggest that a player associated with an occurrence of an award triggering event is provided a contributed item since, at most, Jackson only describes that a player can win a primary jackpot when there is a winning event.”
The Examiner disagrees. Jackson discloses that when a player achieves a jackpot (ie: occurrence of a winning event), the player is provided with the jackpot. In this case, since a player that makes wagers in which separate portions of it are being contributed to the jackpot, this means the player is provided with the contribution upon winning the jackpot.
“Jackson also does not teach or suggest that a user who contributed an item is provided at least a portion of an escrowed amount associated with the contributed item since, at most, Jackson only describes that a randomly selected active player can win a secondary jackpot when there is a winning event. In other words, while Jackson describes that players of a wagering game can win a primary jackpot and a secondary jackpot of a progressive jackpot when there is a winning event, Jackson does not teach or suggest (1) a player being provided a contributed item and (2) a user who contributed the item being provided a portion of an escrowed amount associated with the contributed item.”
The Examiner disagrees and had addressed the issue above. The contributed items (ie: monetary units) that is provided as a portion an escrowed amount (ie: portion of wagers that are being used to contributed to a jackpot) are provided to the player upon achieving a winning event.
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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715