DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 6/2/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 have been amended and new claim 22 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “wherein the secondary game is a table game” is redundant to the newly added same language in claims 1 and 11. The Examiner recommends removing the redundant language from claims 2 and 12. 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 11-20 are directed to a process.
Claim 21 is not directed to a non-statutory category because it recites one or more “computer-readable mediums” (CRM), which could be transient signals. The Examiner recommends amending claim 21 to recite that the CRM is non-transitory.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Providing a primary/secondary game to a user (e.g., claims 1, 11, 7, and 17)
Determining a game result of a wager (e.g., claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20)
Selecting odds for wagering game (e.g., claims 4-6 and 14-16)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Displaying or outputting game information (e.g., claims 1 and 11, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Accepting/receiving user inputs (e.g., claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Specific categories of data, including historical horse race data, table game type (e.g., claims 2, 12, and 22, a particular technological environment or field of use)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-22 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a processor, display, and input device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of slot machines including processors/memory (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
As an initial matter, the Examiner agrees that the newly added features overcome the prior art based on Applicant’s remarks on pages 12-14. Therefore, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
On page 10, Applicant noted that claim 1 has been amended to recite a display device, an input device, a memory, and a processor. Three of the four hardware elements were previously recited in claim 1. The addition of “a memory” does not add additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is the Examiner’s position that the recited game rules are abstract and the mere recitation of the well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware features (e.g., a display device, an input device, a memory, and a processor) do not add additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It appears that Applicant’s additional arguments on page 12 are more akin to a 103 rejection than a 101 rejection. Therefore, the additional arguments on page 12 are not persuasive to overcome the 101 rejection. The Examiner extends an invitation to discuss possible strategies to overcome the 101 rejection in a telephone examiner interview.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights