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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 03/19/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been currently canceled. Currently, Claims 1, 11, and 22 have been amended. No new matter appears to have 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 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. The instant invention claims a computer system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-9, a method (i.e., a process) in claims 11-18 and 20-21, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture) in claim 22. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, prong one, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. According to the specification, the invention is directed to “[a] platform for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments” (abstract). More particularly, representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
1. A computer system including a processor and a memory, the memory containing software instructions configuring the system to perform acting including:
receive player data for each of a plurality of players registered with a casino, wherein the player data is recorded and monitored periodically or in real-time;
aggregate and store the player data for each of the plurality of players;
determine a player status classification for each of the plurality of players, wherein the player status classification is based on past and current casino visits;
train a model with a training data set comprising label data, wherein the training set comprises training features including demographic information, player visit patterns, and aggregated player gaming statistics;
predicting a risk of churning for each of the plurality of players based on a visit pattern for each of the plurality of players and a neural network model trained with the training data set comprising labeled data; and
cause to be displayed on an interface a recommendation for a casino promotion, wherein the recommendation for the casino promotion is generated by a classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics, the determination of player status classifications, and predicted risks of churning.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompasses the abstract idea (similar to that of claims 11 and 22 as well). Dependent claims 2-9, 12-18, and 20-21 further define the abstract idea by introducing further rules for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., commercial or legal interactions including legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales behaviors; business relations); and/or
a mental process (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind, including, observation, evaluation, and judgment).
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a process of rules/steps for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments. The limitations about receiving, aggregating, and determining projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments are, as drafted, processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” “a memory,” and in claim 11 “a gaming machine analytics computing system,” nothing in the claim(s) elements precludes the steps from being a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process. A person entering, aggregating, storing, and processing data for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments is akin to legal obligations or business relations and/or a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions and/or a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception, as outlined above, is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – using a processor, a memory, and in claim 11 a gaming machine analytics computing system to perform rules/steps for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments. The components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor, computer, and display device can perform the generic computer functions of receiving, storing, calculating, and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 22 encompass the following additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: a processor, a memory, and in claims 11 and 22 a gaming machine analytics computing system. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, the specification makes it clear that the method and system can be implemented on generic computers.
[0119] The gaming analytics computing system 100 can be provided using any suitable processor-based device or system, such as a personal computer, laptop, server, mainframe, or a collection (e.g., network) of multiple computers, for example. The gaming analytics computing system 100 can include one or more processors 102 and one or more computer memory units 104. For convenience, only one processor 102 and only one memory unit 104 are shown in FIG. 1. The processor 102 can execute software instructions stored on the memory unit 104. The processor 102 can be implemented as an integrated circuit (IC) having one or multiple cores. The memory unit 104 can include volatile and/or non-volatile memory units. Volatile memory units can include random access memory (RAM), for example. Non-volatile memory units can include read only memory (ROM), for example, as well as mechanical non-volatile memory systems, such as, for example, a hard disk drive, an optical disk drive, etc. The RAM and/or ROM memory units can be implemented as discrete memory ICs, for example.
As such, a processor, a memory, and a gaming machine analytics computing system for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments, may require no more than generic, conventional, and well-known computer devices such as a general purpose computer (as evidenced in Para. 119 above).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to rules/steps for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments (Claims 2-9, 12-18, and 20-21).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, and a gaming machine analytics computing system for providing projections, predictions, and recommendations for casino and gaming environments amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-known generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Prior Art
No prior art has been applied to claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22.
For example, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious a method and computer system comprising: predicting a risk of churning for each of the plurality of players based on a visit pattern for each of the plurality of players and a neural network model trained with the training data set comprising labeled data; and cause to be displayed on an interface a recommendation for a casino promotion, wherein the recommendation for the casino promotion is based on past promotion performance metrics, the determination of player status classifications, and the predicted risks of churning (See at least claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “These limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. A person cannot
mentally train a neural network model with labeled data comprising demographic information, player visit patterns, and aggregated gaming statistics. A person cannot mentally execute a trained neural network to predict churn risk for a plurality of players. And a person cannot mentally operate a classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics to generate promotional recommendations. The Examiner's assertion that these steps constitute a "mental process" ignores the computational reality of neural network processing and classification model training.
The USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 (Anomaly Detection) is instructive. In that example, Claim 2 was found ineligible because it recited detecting and analyzing anomalies "using the trained ANN" but "only recite[d] the outcome" of detecting and analyzing anomalies "without any details about how the 'detecting' and 'analyzing' are accomplished." The claim was found to use the trained ANN "to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained ANN functions." In contrast, the present claims specify the training data structure (labeled data with demographic information, player visit patterns, and aggregated gaming statistics), the model architecture (neural network for churn prediction), and the output integration (classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics). The claims do not merely recite an outcome. Instead, they recite the specific technical means by which the outcome is achieved.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
“Examiners are reminded that examples issued by the Office in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance are intended to show exemplary analyses only and should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection or relied upon in the same manner as a decision from a court” (see p. 2 of May 2016 Memorandum: Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection). Additionally, the facts of the application here do not uniquely match the facts at issue in Example 47. Example 47 relates to the use of an artificial neural network to identify or detect anomalies and more specifically (in the case of Claim 3) improving network security. Applicant’s claims at present do not improve network security nor do they improve the function of a computer or technical field. However, they are related to an abstract business/marketing method for retaining players by recommending a casino promotion. For example, if time and resources are spent on player retention programs, reducing time and resources spent to retain a player would increase casino revenue. However, like Example 47, Claim 2, the claims at present recite a judicial exception (abstract idea), the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and the claims do not provide significantly more than the exception.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The specification describes a technical problem with conventional casino marketing approaches. As stated in paragraph [0003], "[c]urrent offerings that are designed to assist casino operators with operational decisioning focus[ing] on data and not context or insights. Further, future machine performance of specific machine key performance indicators (KPIs) is most commonly predicted with a linear trend line, generated through a simple statistical process like linear regression on recent historical performance. More advanced methods might utilize basic time series methods to remove seasonality before regressing, but these approaches are extremely simplistic and often yield poor predictions." Paragraph [0004] further explains that "effective marketing and promotional efforts are often not directed to players. Instead, time and resources are spent on recruiting and retention programs that fail to deliver the desired results." As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0003]-[0004].
The claims provide a technical solution to this technical problem. The amended claims now recite specific technical steps that reflect the improvement described in the specification: (1) a specific training data structure comprising labeled data with demographic information, player visit patterns, and aggregated gaming statistics; (2) a specific model architecture using a neural network for churn prediction; and (3) a specific output integration using a classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics to generate recommendations. This is not merely "applying" machine learning to marketing-it is a specific technical architecture that transforms raw player data into actionable promotional recommendations.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the cited portions of the specification are not a “technical problem” nor are they a “technical solution to a technical problem” as the claims at present do not improve the function of a computer or technical field. However, they are related to an abstract business/marketing method for retaining players by recommending a casino promotion. For example, if time and resources are spent on player retention programs, reducing time and resources spent to retain a player would increase casino revenue. Using a computer system (including trained models) to reduce time and resources spent to increase casino revenue is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technical field. Much like Claim 2 of Example 47, recitation of “a neural network model” and “a classification model” in the final two limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and said limitations merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “USPTO Example 47 again provides guidance. In that example, Claim 3 was found eligible
because it "reflects the improvement described in the background" and "integrates the judicial exception into a practical application." Specifically, the claim included additional steps that "provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures." The USPTO explained that "[t]he claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection" because the claim recited specific steps for detecting source addresses, dropping malicious packets, and blocking future traffic-not merely the outcome of improved security.
Similarly, the present claims reflect the technical improvement described in the
specification. The claims recite how the recommendation is generated-through a classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics-not merely the outcome of generating a recommendation. The claims recite how churn risk is predicted-through a neural network model trained with specific labeled data-not merely the outcome of predicting churn. This specific technical architecture provides a particular solution to the particular problem of ineffective casino marketing identified in the specification.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, “Examiners are reminded that examples issued by the Office in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance are intended to show exemplary analyses only and should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection or relied upon in the same manner as a decision from a court” (see p. 2 of May 2016 Memorandum: Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection). Additionally, the facts of the application here do not uniquely match the facts at issue in Example 47. Example 47 relates to the use of an artificial neural network to identify or detect anomalies and more specifically (in the case of Claim 3) improving network security. Applicant’s statement of, “not merely the outcome of improved security,” is contradictory to what is disclosed in Example 47, as this is express stated reasoning for Claim 3’s eligibility in the first paragraph of Example 47. Applicant’s claims at present do not improve network security nor do they improve the function of a computer or technical field. As discussed above, they are related to an abstract business/marketing method for retaining players by recommending a casino promotion. Thus, like Example 47, Claim 2, the claims at present recite a judicial exception (abstract idea), the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and the claims do not provide significantly more than the exception.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “The specific combination of a neural network model for churn prediction with a classification model trained on past promotion performance metrics to generate recommendations represents a particular technical solution that goes beyond mere instructions to "apply it." The claims do not merely recite the concept of predicting churn and generating recommendations since they recite the specific technical means by which these results are achieved. This ordered combination of trained models working together provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. "[L]ack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101". (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Therefore, as shown above, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22 are herein maintained.
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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights