Detailed Action
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 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
monitor activity on the electronic gaming machine for the occurrence of any of a plurality of different types of gaming system events in a first set of types of gaming system events
update, responsive to each occurrence of a type of gaming system event in the first set of types of gaming system events, a value or values of at least one of the one or more first meters based on the occurrence of that type of gaming system event
obtain one or more meter definitions from one or more meter definition files, each meter definition associated with a corresponding second meter and defining a corresponding rule for determining a value for the corresponding second meter
obtain one or more meter definition files from a device remote from the electronic gaming machine via the one or more communications interfaces,
initialize the one or more second meters defined by the one or more meter definitions
update a value or values of at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on the corresponding meter definition or definitions for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters using, at least in part, one or more values for the one or more first meters
monitor activity on the electronic gaming machine for the occurrence of any types of gaming system events in a second set of types of gaming system events
receive a request to output the values for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters, and update, responsive to receiving the request, the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on each occurrence of a type of gaming system event in the second set of types of gaming system events based on the corresponding meter definition or definitions for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters using the, at least in part, one or more values for the one or more first meters
provide output indicative of the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters
add, responsive to updating the value or values of the at least one of the one or more first meters, one or more first records to a data structure stored on the one or more storage devices, wherein the one or more first records are each associated with a corresponding one of the at least one of the one or more first meters
update, responsive to receiving the request, the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on the corresponding meter definition or definitions for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters using, at least in part, one or more values for the one or more first meters retrieved from the one or more first records from the data structure
responsive to each occurrence of any of the types of gaming system events in the second set of types of gaming system events, the one or more processors to update the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on the occurrence of that type of gaming system event
wherein the value of each second meter is ultimately derivable from the value or values of at least one of the one or more of the first meters
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of limitations in the mind. A human—using their mind, pen, and paper—is capable of monitoring activity on an electronic gaming machine, updating values in response to certain events, obtaining meter definitions according to preset rules, and updating multiple meter values using the events and definitions.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claim 1 recites the additional elements of “an electronic gaming machine comprising one or more displays, one or more credit input devices, one or more credit output devices, one or more player input devices, one or more processors, one or more storage devices and one or more memory devices.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Gaming machine comprising one or more displays: A video gaming device per se has been noted as a well-understood and conventional feature in the gaming art, and thus cannot integrate the invention into a practical application. See, e.g., US 2008/0254854 (¶ [0024]).
One or more credit input devices: are considered to be routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., US 2004/0127280 A1 (¶ [0021]).
Communication interface — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0057] Communication between the gaming devices 104A-104X and the server computers 102, and among the gaming devices 104A-104X, may be direct or indirect, such as over the Internet through a website maintained by a computer on a remote server or over an online data network including commercial online service providers, Internet service providers, private networks, and the like. In other embodiments, the gaming devices 104A-104X may communicate with one another and/or the server computers 102 over RF, cable TV, satellite links and the like.
Thus, it would be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
Memory, storage device, and processor operably connected: these are recited at a high level of generality in the specification with no specific features claimed. Thus, it would be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
Present one or more wagering games using the one or more displays: is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because it is tangential to the inventive concept of the claims. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Operate the one or more wagering games responsive to inputs received by the one or more player input devices: is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because it is tangential to the inventive concept of the claims.
Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because as a whole, the system constitutes common gaming components being utilized in a well-understood and conventional way. The downstream data collection and manipulation steps are recited at such an abstract degree as to not require the use of a specialized machine or computer to execute them.
With respect to the wagering games, these additional elements which were interpreted under step 2A prong 2 as insignificant extra solution activity are re-evaluated in step 2B, and evidence is known that they are nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Operate the one or more wagering games responsive to inputs received by the one or more player input devices and present one or more wagering games using the one or more displays: presenting wagering games on a display has been noted as routine and conventional activity in the gaming art. See, e.g., US 6186894 B1 (col. 5 lines 25-38). Additionally, wagering has been found to be a fundamental economic activity. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245.
Obtain one or more meter definition files from a device remote from the electronic gaming machine via the one or more communications interfaces and obtain one or more meter definitions from the one or more meter definition files:
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).
The remaining claims are adjudged to be practicably human-performable or conventional as follows:
Claim 2: provide output indicative of the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters: Post-solution activity.
Claim 3: add, responsive to updating the value or values of the at least one of the one or more first meters, one or more first records to a data structure stored on the one or more storage devices, wherein the one or more first records are each associated with a corresponding one of the at least one of the one or more first meters; and update, responsive to receiving a request to output the value or values for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters, the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on the corresponding meter definition or definitions for the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters using, at least in part, one or more values for the one or more first meters retrieved from the one or more first records from the data structure: Data collection, storage, analysis and output. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 4: wherein each first record stores data selected from the group consisting of: a value of one of the first meters immediately prior to being updated, the value of one of the first meters immediately after being updated, and a difference between the value of the one of the first meters immediately prior to and after being updated. Data collection, storage, analysis and output. See supra.
Claim 5: update the value or values of the at least one second meter of the one or more second meters based on the occurrence of that type of gaming system event. Same. See supra.
Claim 7: wherein the value of each second meter is ultimately derivable from the value or values of at least one of the one or more of the first meters. Same. See supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
As a first matter, the test is not whether a human is capable of using their mind, pen, and paper to perform a calculation or perform a technique, but whether the recited limitations can be practically performed in the human mind. Per M.P.E.P. $2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations."
.
Respectfully, the “pen and pencil” standard has been used by this Office for many years and is undergirded by substantial case law. Courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and those that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally, i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). See, also, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Applicant argues:
In the case of meters for an electronic gaming machine, it is simply not practical for a human mind to serve as a "meter" since meters record multiple parameters for every game play-some of which are not visible to an observer-and game plays can occur once every several seconds. The volume and rate of meter updates would be huge. It is simply not practical for a human to perform the recited limitations in their head and/or on paper given the nature of gaming machine meters. Moreover, meters serve an evidentiary and regulatory purpose (e.g., are used in auditing gaming machines to ensure that they are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements) and trusting to a human observer/mind would not be adequate since a human observer could make mistakes, omit a value, or deliberately alter a value..
Again, respectfully, even if the preceding is true, the referenced functionality is neither here nor there because it is not embodied in the rejected claims. Limitations contained only in the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Consideration of the subject matter eligibility of claims is done under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Putting aside the routine and conventional elements of representative claim 1, we are left with, essentially, rules and procedures for recordkeeping. Addition of real-world conditions that would tend to make the invention impracticable to human-perform might militate toward eligibility, such as timing factors, jurisdictional/evidentiary compliance functions, etc. Absent these, however, claim 1 is adjudged to be analogous to claims that have previously been found to recite mental processes, to wit:
"collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
See, also, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III. A.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax number for the examiner is (571) 270-8844. 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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.uspto.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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights