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 Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “receiving a plurality horse races” and should be corrected to “receiving a plurality of horse races”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 are drawn to a method of operating a gaming server (process).
Claims 18-30 are drawn to a gaming server (machine).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices (i.e. wagering).
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 1 as exemplary:
1. A method of operating a gaming server, comprising:
receiving a plurality of a first game selections associated with a first game (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager);
converting the plurality of first game selections into a plurality of horse race game selections, wherein the first game is different from a horse race game (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager);
sending, to a horse race selection generator, a request for a randomly generated horse race selection value;
receiving a randomly generated horse race selection value;
requesting, from an electronic race day control server (ERDC), a draw of horse races based on the randomly generated horse race selection value;
receiving a plurality horse races from the ERDC that are based on the randomly generated horse race selection value;
determining game outcomes based on the plurality of horse race game selections and at least one of the received plurality of horse races (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager);
updating at least one player account associated with the plurality of first game selections according to the determined game outcomes (certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices such as wagering; wagering includes actions such as receiving an input/wager, determining an outcome, and using the outcome to settle the wager); and
sending the game outcomes and a video of the at least one of the received plurality of horse races to at least one electronic game machine.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1 and 18 are directed to the fundamental economic practice of wagering, aside from the reference to a generic computer (e.g. a processor, a memory, a horse race selection generator, an electronic race day control server, an electronic game machine).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 18 recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a horse race selection generator, an electronic race day control server, and an electronic game machine, along with the steps of sending a request, receiving a value, requesting a draw, receiving horse races, and sending game outcomes and video. The processor, memory, horse race selection generator, electronic race day control server, and electronic game machine are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing and transmitting data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply invoking a computer or other generic components as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. In other words, the claims invoke the processor, memory, horse race selection generator, electronic race day control server, and electronic game machine merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of sending a request, receiving a value, requesting a draw, receiving horse races, and sending game outcomes and video are considered insignificant extra-solution activities related to transmitting and displaying data and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 18 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor, memory, horse race selection generator, electronic race day control server, and electronic game machine are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions like processing and transmitting data) and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea using a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink AND Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-17 and 19-30 inherit the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 18.
Claims 2-17 and 19-30 recite further additional element limitations related to wagering and sending and receiving data. These additional elements, under their BRI, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping(s) of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are considered insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activities, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asher et al. (US 7,566,268 B2), Corckran et al. (US 2015/0262452 A1), Cannon (US 6,786,824 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 1/8/2026