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 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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game.”
The limitations of “generating, via one of one or more computing devices, an outcome for a first portion of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia; rendering, via one of the one or more computing devices, a user interface comprising the plurality of indicia on a display; generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game; receiving, via one of the one or more computing devices, a plurality of inputs individually corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of indicia; and determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, an award for the wagering game based on the plurality of inputs” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “generating, rendering, receiving and determining” in the context of this claim encompasses generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
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.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Indrakumar (US 2022/0270437 A1).
As per claim 1, Indrakumar discloses a system, comprising: a display; a memory device; and at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the memory device and the display (see fig. 1A, 136), the at least one computing device being configured to: generate an outcome for a first portion of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia [0058]; render a user interface comprising the plurality of indicia on the display (see abstract; [0008]); generate a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game ([0055], [0063]); receive a plurality of inputs individually corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of indicia ([0010], [0014]); and determine an award for the wagering game based on the plurality of inputs [0015].
As per claim 2, Indrakumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to analyze the plurality of inputs to determine an outcome of the skill-based game, wherein the award is based on the outcome of the skill-based game [0009].
As per claim 3, Indrakumar discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to determine the award as a percentage of a bet amount based on the outcome for the first portion of the wagering game being a losing outcome and the outcome of the skill-based game being a winning outcome [0091].
As per claim 4, Indrakumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to generate the skill-based game by: highlighting individual ones of a plurality of the plurality of indicia in a particular order; and determining whether the plurality of inputs correspond to the plurality of the plurality of indicia in the particular order (inherent features for Indrakumar’s system).
As per claim 5, Indrakumar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to generate the skill-based game on the display based on the outcome of the wagering game [0091].
As per claim 6, Indrakumar discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to generate the skill-based game on the display in response to the outcome of the wagering game being a losing outcome [0091].
As per claim 8, Indrakumar discloses a method, comprising: generating, via one of one or more computing devices, an outcome for a first portion of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia [0058]; rendering, via one of the one or more computing devices, a user interface comprising the plurality of indicia on a display (see abstract; [0008]); generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game ([0055], [0063]); receiving, via one of the one or more computing devices, a plurality of inputs individually corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of indicia ([0010], [0014]); and determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, an award for the wagering game based on the plurality of inputs [0015].
As per claim 11, the method of claim 8, wherein generating the skill-based game on the display comprises generating an indicator corresponding to at least one of the plurality of indicia from the first portion of the wagering game [0050].
As per claim 12, Indrakumar discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, via one of the one or more computing devices, a selection of a particular indicia of the plurality of indicia as a first of the plurality of inputs; and changing, via one of the one or more computing devices, the particular indicia to a different indicia in response to receiving the selection ([0052]-[0053].
As per claim 13, Indrakumar discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: generating the skill-based game in response to the outcome of the first portion being a losing outcome; and refunding a percentage of a bet amount for the first portion in response to an outcome of the skill-based game being a winning outcome (inherent features for Indrakumar’s system).
As per claim 14, Indrakumar discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the selectable components for the skill-based game consists exclusively of the plurality of indicia from the first portion of the wagering game [0049].
As per claim 15, Indrakumar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to: generate an outcome for a first portion of a wagering game comprising a plurality of indicia [0058]; render a user interface comprising the plurality of indicia on a display (see abstract; [0008]); generate a skill-based game on the display using the plurality of indicia as selectable components for the skill-based game ([0055], [0063]); receive a plurality of inputs individually corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of indicia ([0010], [0014]); and determine an award for the wagering game based on the plurality of inputs [0015].
As per claim 16, Indrakumar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the program further causes the at least on computing device to: generate a second outcome for the first portion of the wagering game; and in response to the second outcome comprising a winning combination of indicia, determine a second award for the wagering game based on the winning combination of indicia without generating the skill-based game [0058].
As per claims 17 and 18, Indrakumar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the award for the wagering game comprises a percentage of a bet amount of the wagering game and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the percentage is 102% (inherent features for Indrakumar’s system).
As per claim 19, Indrakumar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein a first duration of the skill-based game is at least ten times longer than a second duration of the first portion of the wagering game [0060].
As per claim 20, Indrakumar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the wagering comprises the first portion and the skill-based game.
PS: No are rejection has been found for dependent claims 7, 9 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4:30 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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715