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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 04/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 04/24/2024 are noted.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system, a controller, and a method in Claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Representative Independent Claim 20 (and similarly recited Claims 1 and 12) recites
“… 20. A method comprising:
determining, by a processor circuit of a progressive controller, that a first gaming device of a plurality of gaming devices in communication with the progressive controller has triggered a progressive win for a progressive wagering game, the plurality of gaming devices comprising a first subset of gaming devices comprising a first communication protocol compatibility and a second subset of gaming devices comprising a second communication protocol compatibility;
determining, by the processor circuit, whether the first gaming device is in the first subset of gaming devices;
in response to a determination that the first gaming device is not in the first subset of gaming devices, determining, by the processor circuit, whether the first gaming device is in the second subset of gaming devices;
in response to a determination that the first gaming device is in the first subset of gaming devices, causing, by the processor circuit, the first gaming device to award a first progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win; and
in response to a determination that the first gaming device is in the second subset of gaming devices and that the first gaming device is not in the first subset of gaming devices, causing, by the processor circuit, the first gaming device to award a second progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win.”
Claim 12 recites “… 12. A progressive controller comprising:
a communication interface in communication with a plurality of gaming devices comprising a first subset of gaming devices comprising a first communication protocol compatibility and a second subset of gaming devices comprising a second communication protocol compatibility;
a processor circuit; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to: determine that a first gaming device of the plurality of gaming devices has triggered a progressive win for a progressive wagering game;
determine whether the first gaming device is in the first subset of gaming devices; in response to a determination that the first gaming device is not in the first subset of gaming devices, determine whether the first gaming device is in the second subset of gaming devices;
in response to a determination that the first gaming device is in the first subset of gaming devices, cause the first gaming device to award a first progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win; and
in response to a determination that the first gaming device is in the second subset of gaming devices and that the first gaming device is not in the first subset of gaming devices, cause the first gaming device to award a second progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win.”
Claim 1 recites “1. A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine that a first gaming device of a plurality of gaming device has triggered a progressive win for a progressive wagering game;
determine a communication protocol capability of the first gaming device;
in response to the determined communication protocol capability of the first gaming device indicating compatibility with a first communication protocol of a plurality of communication protocols, cause the first gaming device to award a first progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win; and
in response to the determined communication protocol capability of the first gaming device indicating incompatibility with a first communication protocol and compatibility with a second communication protocol of a plurality of communication protocols, determine a second progressive prize based on the first progressive prize, and cause the first gaming device to award the second progressive prize.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 12 and 20, generally encompass the abstract ideas, for example as, steps, instructions or rules for providing a game, namely, following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Further, the abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as: a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., wager games, which are effectively methods of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations between one or more players and an operator of the gaming system based on probabilities created during the game (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game.
Further, the dependent Claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 12, and 20 further recite a communication interface, a processor circuit and a memory, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The displaying steps of the game are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, Claims 1, 12, 20, and their dependent claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim of a communication interface, a processor circuit, and a memory, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements (i.e. communication interface, a processor circuit, and a memory, etc.) are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, displaying steps of the claims are deemed to be following rules of game, data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 12, and 20 remain ineligible.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 2-11 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 13-19 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 12.
In addition, the dependent Claims are also ineligible and lack a practical application.
AIA Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0243934 A1 to Little et al. (hereinafter Little).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 11, and 20, Little discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit (¶ 50 discloses a processor); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (¶ 50 discloses memory), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine that a first gaming device of a plurality of gaming device has triggered a progressive win for a progressive wagering game (¶ 482 an individual gaming machine and a remote host (or progressive gaming system host site computer) work in conjunction with each other to determine when a progressive win is triggered, for example through an individual gaming machine meeting a predetermined requirement established by the remote host);
determine a communication protocol capability of the first gaming device (¶¶ 50, 125, 128 discloses determining a capability of the gaming machine);
in response to the determined communication protocol capability of the first gaming device indicating compatibility with a first communication protocol of a plurality of communication protocols, cause the first gaming device to award a first progressive prize corresponding to the progressive win (¶¶ 118, 128, 483-487 discloses communication protocol capabilities…and to distribute an award…); and
in response to the determined communication protocol capability of the first gaming device indicating incompatibility with a first communication protocol and compatibility with a second communication protocol of a plurality of communication protocols, determine a second progressive prize based on the first progressive prize, and cause the first gaming device to award the second progressive prize (¶¶ 118, 128, 223, 416….483-487 discloses the different types of progressive awards awarded once triggered, when the instructions and/or data are codified in a communication protocol, the gaming machine may first check to see whether the instructions and/or data is a recognized part of the protocol. Then, even if the instructions and/or data is part of the protocol, the gaming machine may not offer the capability requested, thus compatibility of instructions and/or data with the gaming machine capabilities may be checked (At the negotiation phase, the instructions and/or data that the gaming machine is capable of utilizing, which may be a subset of the instructions and/or data that may be communicated as part of the communication protocol may be established.) .
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 13, Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first communication protocol is Ethernet IGT Progressive Protocol (eIPP), and the second communication protocol is Slot Accounting System (SAS) (¶ 198 discloses the different types of communication protocols).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 14, Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first progressive prize comprises a plurality of free spins, and wherein the second progressive prize comprises a monetary value corresponding to an expected win value of the plurality of free spins (¶¶ 298-305 discloses a type of award can be free spins and a modifier of any primary game, one or more additional ways to win, etc.).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15, Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first progressive prize comprises a multiplier value for a plurality of spins, and wherein the second progressive prize comprises a monetary value corresponding to an expected win value for the plurality of spins times the multiplier value (¶¶ 298-305 discloses a type of award can be free spins and a modifier of any primary game, one or more additional ways to win, etc.).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 16, Little discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to:
receive plurality of progressive contribution amounts from the plurality of gaming devices (¶¶ 238-239, 342-344); and
for each progressive contribution amount of the plurality of progressive contribution amounts, increase a value of a progressive level amount based on the progressive contribution amount (¶¶ 238-239, 342-344).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, Little discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the award of the first progressive prize by the first gaming devices comprises:
transmission of a current progressive level amount value to the first gaming device and an instruction to the first gaming device to determine the first progressive prize based on the current progressive level amount value (¶¶ 342-344 discloses different players may play for different gaming session bonus awards based on each player's status).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 18, Little discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the award of the second progressive prize by the first gaming device comprises:
transmission of a current progressive level amount value to a second gaming device of the plurality of gaming devices via the first communication protocol and an instruction to the second gaming device to determine a value of the first progressive prize based on the current progressive level amount value (¶¶ 342-344 discloses upon a determination to provide a player a bonus award for a gaming session, the remote host may select a player to provide an accumulated value progressive award. In another embodiment, upon the player's tracked gaming activity reaching or exceeding a designated threshold of gaming activity, the remote host may randomly select a bonus award from a prize pool and may instruct the gaming device to provide the player the selected bonus award. In one such embodiment, upon a determination to provide a player a bonus award for a gaming session, the remote host may select a bonus award from a prize pool that is based on the player's status); and
determination of the second progressive prize based on the determined value of the first progressive prize (¶¶ 342-344, 486-487).
Regarding Claim 8, Little discloses the system of claim 5, wherein progressive level amount value is a unitless number (¶¶ 344).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 19, Little discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the award of the second progressive prize by the first gaming device comprises:
request for a progressive prize parameter from a second gaming device of the plurality of gaming devices via the first communication protocol (¶¶ 486-487); and
determination of the second progressive prize based on the requested progressive prize parameter and a current progressive level amount (¶¶ 486-487).
Regarding Claim 10, Little discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the progressive prize parameter is a number of free spins, and wherein the determined second progressive prize comprises a monetary value corresponding to an expected win value of a number of free spins equal to the current progressive level amount (¶¶ 298-305 discloses a type of award can be free spins and a modifier of any primary game, one or more additional ways to win, etc).
Regarding Claim 11, Little discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the progressive prize parameter is a multiplier value for a plurality of spins, and wherein the determined second progressive prize comprises a monetary value corresponding to an expected win value of the plurality of spins times the multiplier value (¶¶ 298-305 discloses a type of award can be free spins and a modifier of any primary game, one or more additional ways to win, etc.).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715