CTNF 18/609,775 CTNF 87327 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 dated 5/14/26 are hereby entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential) ; and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: [a] gaming [method] comprising: […] randomly determine […] whether to associate an occurrence of a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 the occurrence of the progressive award triggering event when randomly associated with the occurrence of the progressive award retention 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, and/or embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software being executed on a computer processor, 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, and/or embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software being executed on a computer processor, 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. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on page 8 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image1.png 128 658 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant claims the rules by which an award may be granted during a game. This is analogous to similar subject matter held to be patent ineligible by the CAFC as being directed to the rules of a game in, e.g., In re: Smith , In re Marco Goldenaar , and Savvy Dog Systems (non-precedential). Applicant argues on page 8 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image2.png 270 670 media_image2.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claimed “random number generator” is not identified as being part of the alleged abstract idea that my be performed as a mental process. Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image3.png 260 668 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 84 654 media_image4.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to one directed to harmonizing webpages across the internet. And to the extent that Applicant may solve the problem of resetting awards to relatively low values there is no basis or rationale provided why this a technological problem. Applicant further argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image5.png 412 714 media_image5.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. To the extent that Applicant’s claimed invention results in greater rates of human beings playing gaming machines as opposed to the machines being idle that is not the solution to a technological problem. It is not as though Applicant has invented something that makes the claimed gaming systems generally more energy efficient, or the like. The fact that a casino might theoretically make more money with machines programmed with Applicant’s invention is not a solution to a technological problem either. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/609,775 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights