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 Status
After the amendments filed 03/23/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1, 8 and 16 were amended.
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 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 8 and 16, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A gaming system comprising:
a housing comprising an openable access door;
a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door;
a plurality of input devices supported by the housing;
a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing, a player tracking display device supported by the housing, and a ticket printer supported by the housing and configured to print a ticket responsive to an activation of one of the input devices;
a processor within the housing; and
a trusted memory device within the housing and that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor, the trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by the display device, of plays of a game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the plays of the game, of an indication of any award amount determined for the play of the game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
after an occurrence of a player inquiry triggering event, cause a display, by the display device, of an interface that asks a player general questions regarding the game, wherein the general questions regarding the game relate to whether the player likes or dislikes the game or one or more features of the game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
cause answers to the general questions that are provided by the player using one of the input devices to be useable to determine player game configuration preferences for the player and to create player game configuration preference data for the player (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
responsive to the answers to the general questions being provided by the player using one of the input devices, cause a display, by the display device, of a benefit to the player for answering the general questions, wherein the benefit comprises a display, by the display device, of a quantity of free plays of the game (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 8 and 16) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a housing comprising an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices, a display device, a player tracking display device, a ticket printer, a processor, a trusted memory device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. In light of the applicant' s specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting rules for managing player interactions and game behavior, which falls squarely within the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping. For example, the specification explains that the system displays questions to the player, receives answers and uses those answers to determine player preference and provide benefits (See Specifciation¶34-37, ¶60). These limitations describe following a prescribed sequence of steps, conditions and outcomes that govern the player’s interaction with the gaming system. The Federal Circuit has held that such game related rules and player interaction logic constitute abstract ideas. See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim limitations directed to displaying questions, receiving answers, determining preferences, and awarding benefits are properly categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, as they merely recite the rules and instructions for conducting the game and managing player behavior, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. In light of the applicant' s specification, several limitations identified above are interpreted as reciting wagering related activity, which is abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles and Practices under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Specifically, the claims recite “cause a display, by the display device, for each of the plays of the game, of an indication of any award amount determined for the play of the game”. In light of applicant' s specification (See Specification ¶3), displaying an award amount for each play of the game is broadly and reasonably interpreted as requiring placement of a wager, because the award amount is “based on winning symbols or symbol combinations and on the amount of a wager for a game”. Wagering is a form of hedging, which the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines expressly identify as a fundamental economic practice and therefore an abstract idea under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the wagering related economic activity while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
C. The claims recite commercial or legal interactions, specifically the formation and execution of a gambling contract between a player a game operator. For example, the claims recite displaying plays of a game, displaying award amounts and providing a benefit (e.g., awards, free plays) in response to player input. These steps collectively constitute the essential elements of a gambling transaction (i.e., the player places a wager, the system determines outcomes and the system provides consideration (e.g., awards, free plays)). Such interactions fall within the Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, which includes agreements, obligations and other contractual relationships and which are included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the commercial/legal aspects of a gambling transaction while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a housing comprising an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a plurality of input devices, a plurality of output devices, a display device, a player tracking display device, a ticket printer, a processor, a trusted memory device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of an openable access door, a security monitoring circuit, a plurality of input devices, a display device, a ticket printer, a processor, a trusted memory device are well-known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0097285, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as an openable access door and a security monitoring circuit (¶9-10), U.S. 2004/0043813 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a plurality of input devices (¶43), display devices (¶41) and a ticket printer (¶9, ¶43), U.S. 2016/0310830 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a trusted memory device (¶103) and U.S. 2011/0130199 which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor (¶32) to control the overall operation of the gaming machine. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lark et al (U.S. 2002/0142825) in view of Hwang (U.S. 2016/0310830) and Acres (U.S. 2009/0239661).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 16, Lark discloses:
a gaming system (¶2, gaming machine) comprising:
a housing comprising an openable access door (¶109, Fig. 5, main cabinet 4 including a mina door 8);
a plurality of input devices supported by the housing (¶109, Fig. 5, player input switches or buttons 32, coin accepter 28, bill validator 30);
a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing, a player tracking display device supported by the housing (¶109, Fig. 5, display monitor 34, information panel 36, secondary display 42), and a ticket printer supported by the housing and configured to print a ticket responsive to an activation of one of the input devices (¶109-110, Fig. 5, ticket printer 18);
a processor within the housing (¶4, ¶21, master gaming controller)); and
a memory device within the housing and that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor, the trusted memory device supported by the housing, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor (¶30, ¶94, memory 304 on which is stored program instructions for implementing a game on the gaming machine), cause the processor to:
cause a display, by the display device, of plays of a game (¶149-150, Fig. 9, at step 908 the gaming machine executes a plurality of games);
cause a display, by the display device, for each of the plays of the game, of an indication of any award amount determined for the play of the game (¶4-5, ¶4-5¸after each game is initiated an outcome and award is determined and presented to the player);
after an occurrence of a player inquiry triggering event, cause a display, by the display device, of an interface that asks a player general questions regarding the game, wherein the general questions regarding the game relate to whether the player likes or dislikes the game or one or more features of the game (¶150-153, Fig. 1A, Fig. 9, upon detecting, for example, the end of a game play session (i.e., a trigger) at step 912 the gaming machine transitions into a preference handling mode and presents an interface for the player to select preferences which are usable in a future game play, as shown in Fig. 1A the player selects features such as game type, graphics and bonus opportunities, the examiner interprets theses selections constituting answers to general questions about what the player likes and dislikes); and
cause answers to the general questions that are provided by the player using one of the input devices to be useable to determine player game configuration preferences for the player and to create player game configuration preference data for the player (¶150-153, the player selected preferences are saved and provided to the player such that the player may configure a second gaming machine using the stored preference).
However, Lark does not specifically disclose:
a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door; or
that the memory device is a trusted memory device configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original; or
responsive to the answers to the general questions being provided by the player using one of the input devices, cause a display, by the display device, of a benefit to the player for answering the general questions, wherein the benefit comprises a display, by the display device, of a quantity of free plays of the game.
Hwang teaches:
A gaming machine (¶102, Fig. 1, gaming machine 2), which includes a housing (¶102, Fig. 1, main cabinet 4) comprising an access door (¶102, main door 8), a security monitoring circuit within the housing and configured to monitor the access door (¶103, security monitoring circuit which detect intrusion into the gaming machine via security switches attached to the door), and a trusted memory device (¶103, trusted memory devices are included in a gaming machine computer to ensure the authenticity of the software) configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original (¶103, trusted memory devices provide gaming regulatory authorities a root trusted authority within the computing environment of the slot machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the security monitoring and trusted memory, as taught by Hwang, into the gaming system, as taught by Lark, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing preventing unauthorized access to the gaming machine and allowing the gaming machines to satisfy regulatory requirements and prevent unauthorized software modification (See Hwang, ¶100-105).
Acres teaches:
a gaming system (¶42, Fig. 3), wherein a player is presented questions which are triggered based on game play (¶57, game outcomes, threshold triggers or absolute triggers cause the system to initiate the survey dialogue with the player), and wherein responsive to the answers to the general questions being provided by the player using one of the input devices (¶52, the system generates the survey questions and displays them to the player via touchscreen 20 and the player responds directly to touchscreen 20), cause a display, by the display device, of a benefit to the player for answering the general questions, wherein the benefit comprises a display, by the display device, of a quantity of free plays of the game (¶52, ¶70, after the player answers the questions the system provides benefits to the player based on the answers provided, for example if the player answers a question indicating a preference for free spins the player is provided free spins as a benefit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, integrate providing a benefit for answering general questions about gameplay, as taught by Acres, into the secure question and answer gaming system, as taught by Hwang and Lark, in order to incentive players to answer the questions and increase their willingness to complete the survey (See Acres. ¶56).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the player inquiry triggering event comprises one of: an amount of time that the player plays the game, a quantity of plays of the game, a total award amount won by the player on the plays of the game, and a total amount loss by the player on the plays of the game.
Acres teaches:
a gaming system (¶13), wherein a player is provided an interface that asks a player general questions regarding a just conducted game (¶56-57, the player is provided a survey at the conclusion of a game session based on a trigger condition occurring during the game session), wherein the interface to ask the player questions (i.e., survey) is triggered based on a triggering event which comprises at least one of: an amount of time that the player plays the game (¶56-57, the triggers include an amount of time the player spent at the gaming device), a quantity of plays of the game (¶56-57, the triggers include a number of losses occurring during the game session (i.e., a quantity of plays)), a total award amount won by the player on the plays of the game (¶56-57, the triggers include the credit meter exceeding a threshold amount), and a total amount loss by the player on the plays of the game (¶56-57, the triggers include the credit meter falling below a threshold amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the survey triggers, as taught by Acres, to trigger the transition to the preference handling mode, as taught by Lark, in order to yield the predictable result of improving the timing and relevance of preference collection, while avoiding interruption to the player’s gaming experience (See Acres, ¶56).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the player inquiry triggering event comprises one of: a player input to switch games and a player cash out input (¶56-57, the player may use interface 50 to select a game, wherein selection of the game triggers different preference options based on the selection).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the player inquiry triggering event comprises a player input to provide information regarding player preferences (¶56-57, the player may use interface 50 to select a game, wherein selection of the game triggers preference option to be provided which are based on the selection).
Regarding claims 5, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to create the player game configuration preference data indirectly based on answers to the general questions provided by the player and information regarding a configuration of the game (¶150-151, gaming preferences which are saved are based on player input preferences and preferences related to preferences used during a gaming session).
Regarding claim 6, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause player game configuration preference data to be transmitted to a player game configuration preference data storage system (¶124, received configuration information is transmitted to an external device for storage and later retrieval).
Regarding claim 7, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause player game configuration preference data to be transmitted to a player game configuration preference data storage system along with player tracking account information associated with the player (¶124-125, preference information is sent to an external device and stored in association with a player identifier which is used to retrieve the preference information).
Regarding claim 12, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the specific questions relate to player preferences for two or more of: game denominations (¶134, denomination settings), game volatility, game maximum wager (¶134, betting preferences), game minimum wager (¶134, betting preferences), game win frequency, secondary game trigger frequency, a quantity of different secondary games, types of secondary games (¶134, preferred bonus games), average expected win amount, and average expected payback percentage.
Regarding claim 13, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to create the player game configuration preference data directly based on answers to the specific questions received from the player (¶150-151, gaming preferences which are saved are based on player input preferences).
Regarding claim 14, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause player game configuration preference data to be transmitted to a player game configuration preference data storage system (¶124, received configuration information is transmitted to an external device for storage and later retrieval).
Regarding claim 15, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause player game configuration preference data to be transmitted to a player game configuration preference data storage system along with player tracking account information associated with the player (¶124, received configuration information is transmitted to an external device for storage and later retrieval).
Regarding claim 19, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: create the player game configuration preference data indirectly based on answers to the general questions received from the player and information regarding a configuration of the game (¶150-151, gaming preferences which are saved are based on player input preferences and preferences related to preferences used during a gaming session), and create the player game configuration preference data directly based on answers to the specific questions received from the player and information regarding the configuration of the game (¶150-151, gaming preferences which are saved are based on player input preferences).
Regarding claim 20, Lark discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause player game configuration preference data to be transmitted to a player game configuration preference data storage system (¶124, received configuration information is transmitted to an external device for storage and later retrieval).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments now direct the claims to a gamin system with specific components what differentiate it from a general-purpose computer (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While the cited specification paragraphs (¶196-221) describe difference between gaming machines and general-purpose computes, the 101 analysis is based on the claim language itself, not the specification. The amended claims recite a processor, memory, input devices, output devices, a display, a ticket printer, a player tracking display, a security monitory circuit and a trusted memory device. However, theses components are recited only at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary, well-understood, routine and convention functions. The claims do not recite any improvement to the function of theses components, nor do they describe any specific functions of these components which would provide any technological improvement.
Applicant argues that the additional physical components integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See Remarks, pgs. 9-10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the question is whether the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements (e.g. a processor, memory, input devices, output devices, a display, a ticket printer, a player tracking display, a security monitory circuit and a trusted memory device) are recited generically and perform only their conventional functions (e.g., receiving input, executing instructions, displaying information, printing tickets, storing data, monitoring system status and storing regulator approved code). These conventional functions do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims merely use these components as tools to implement the abstract game rules. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the substantive amendments to the claims which materially changed the scope of the claims. Therefore, the previously applied references are being applied to different claim elements as necessary to address the amended claim language. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the applicability of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights