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 .
Applicant's amendments filed on 9/1/26 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 1-16 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.
Claims 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1 and 9, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] gaming [method] comprising:
[…]
randomly determine […] whether to associate an occurrence of a progressive award triggering event with an occurrence of a progressive award retention event, and
responsive to a receipt of data associated with […] a security [event] following the random determination to associate with the occurrence of the progressive award triggering event with the occurrence of the progressive award retention event:
disable any occurrence of the progressive award triggering event […], and
following a receipt of data associated with [an end of] the security [event]:
enable the occurrence of the progressive award triggering event […], and
responsive to the occurrence of the progressive award triggering event […]:
cause an increase of a meter […] based on a first value of a progressive award, and
responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award increment event, cause a display […] of an increase to the first value of the progressive award, wherein the progressive award triggering event is associated with the occurrence of the progressive award retention event independent of any value of the progressive award and independent of any prior occurrences of the progressive award triggering event.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a gaming system, a processor, a memory device, a display device, a random number generator, embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software being executed on a computer processor, and/or an access door of an EGM having a security monitoring circuit, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a gaming system, a processor, a memory device, a display device, a random number generator, embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software being executed on a computer processor, and/or an access door of an EGM having a security monitoring circuit, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F3 and F4A-C in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same, and, e.g., p76 and 161; and see, e.g., p160 regarding an access door of an EGM having a security monitoring circuit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
124
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The claimed “security monitoring circuit” is not identified in the 101 rejection made supra as being part of the alleged abstract idea. And simply requiring “physical hardware components” in addition to an abstract idea does not necessarily render “significantly more”. See, e.g., the computing and sensing devices required by the claims in Electric Power Group, the copy machine required in Content Extraction, the digital camera required in Yu v. Apple, the garage door opener required in Chamberlain, the fish hooks required in In re Rudy. Also see the operation of a 3D printer to print an object required in Ficep v. Peddinghaus (non-precedential).
Applicant further argues on page 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
342
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant references numerous limitations here which are alleged in the 101 rejection made supra as being part of the abstract idea. And the Berkheimer finding need only be made in regard to elements claimed in addition to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(d): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”, emphasis added. What is more, to the extent that Applicant now claims employing a “security monitoring circuit”, given that there is one paragraph in Applicant’s PGPUB as far as how to make and/or use this feature, it must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing, otherwise such a limited disclosure would not be enabling.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
430
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
124
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the opening of the access door suspends all game play, has nothing specifically to do with and is thereby completely peripheral to Applicant’s claimed bonus game.
Applicant argues on page 10 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image6.png
540
708
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Ceasing play of a game when there is a security violation that is detected is an abstract idea and not a technological improvement. To the extent that Applicant claims embodying the detection of the security violation by employing the well-understood, routine, and conventional technology of a security monitoring circuit on the access door of an EGM, that does not add “significantly more”, as Applicant’s claimed invention provides no improvement to the security monitoring circuit per se.
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights