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 02/12/2025, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-19 and 20 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 1-20 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 10 and 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A method of operating a gaming system, comprising:
a housing comprising an openable access door,
a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door,
a power distribution component within by the housing,
a plurality of input devices supported by the housing,
a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing, an electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel supported by the housing, a player tracking display device supported by the housing, a speaker supported by the housing, and a ticket printer supported by the housing and configured to print a ticket responsive to an activation of one of the input devices,
a sound card within by the housing and operable with the speaker,
a processor within the housing, and a trusted memory device within the housing and that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor,
said method comprising:
causing a display, by the display device, of processor randomly determined initial cards for an initial hand (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
causing a display, by the display device, of a duplicate of each initial card that is held for the initial hand in each of a plurality of additional hands (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
causing a display, by the display device, of processor randomly determined a replacement card in the initial hand for each initial card in the initial hand that is not held (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
causing a display, by the display device, of completion of each of the additional hands (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
causing a display, by the display device, of a determined award modifier for each additional hand that satisfies a winning hand condition (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
causing a display, by the display device, of a total quantity of award modifiers, the total quantity being at least two (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity):
causing a display, by the display device, of a single spin of the electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel supported by the housing associated with the total quantity of award modifiers if the total quantity of the award modifiers is less than an award modifier threshold (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
causing a display, by the display device, of multiple spins of the electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel associated with the total quantity of award modifiers if the total quantity of the award modifiers is more than the award modifier threshold, wherein each spin of the electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel is associated with a part of but not all of the total quantity of award modifiers (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 15) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a housing, an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a power distribution component, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices, a display device, an electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel, a player tracking display device, a speaker, and a ticket printer, a sound card, a processor, and a trusted memory device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
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; and
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game (See Specification ¶15, Figs. 1A, 1B, one example embodiment…to provide a play of one example embodiment of a wagering game and particularly a multi-hand poker game of the present disclosure), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20:
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. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional game rules 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 1-20 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 housing, an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a power distribution component, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices, a display device, an electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel, a player tracking display device, a speaker, and a ticket printer, a sound card, a processor, and a trusted memory device”, 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 housing with openable access door, a security monitoring circuit to monitor the access door, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices comprising a display device and a player tracking display device are well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2011/0111836, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises at least a housing with openable access door, a security monitoring circuit to monitor the access door, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices comprising a display device and a player tracking display device (See ¶3-4). The elements of a speaker and a power distribution component are well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2004/0229693, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a speaker and a power distribution component (See ¶29). Further, the element of an electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel is a well-known conventional device used to electronically implement a game as evidence by US 2004/0214630, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises an electromechanical rotatable bonus wheel (¶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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application” (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). While in a sense, there is a practical application (as there is with all utility patents), there is no “practical application” within the meaning the courts have used the term in conjunction with §101. The courts have made it plain that in order to be considered a “practical application” in the §101 sense, software patents much improve the functioning of a computer as a computer. In short, there must be a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant’s invention does not provide any such technological solution.
Conclusion
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 on (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