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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 – 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/15/26. Claims 1 – 18 are now pending in the current application.
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 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 - 18 are directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A method comprising: detecting, by an electronic processor associated with a gaming machine, user input that indicates use of the gaming machine; gathering, by the electronic processor in response to detection of the user input, prompt-related data; generating, by the electronic processor based on the prompt-related data, a prompt; dynamically generating, by the electronic processor via a machine learning model using the prompt, original gaming content; and presenting, by the electronic processor via a presentation device of the gaming machine, the original gaming content.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1. Dependent claims 2 - 18 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system comprising machine learning, that evaluates player input of a player playing the game, and based on said player input, present gaming content to the player. Presenting game content to a player based on a player’s input playing the game by invoking machine learning, represents managing personal behavior, (use of machine learning machine in a given environment, see Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed Cir. 2025). This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards evaluating player input and presenting game content to player based on said player input, wherein the claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The claims recite instructions for controlling a game with these features. Here, a human can observe and determine that game content has been presented. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processor along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a player, wherein a player’s input is monitored to determine gaming content to be presented to a player, wherein Muir teaches a gaming device using machine learning for creating computer programs is conventional and known in the art, (par. 0223), wherein this is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a processor and a machine learning model, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. The claims further recite the use of machine learning models arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provide details about specific or improved learning models, rather they apply particular game information to existing machine learning models to process game information. In light of Recentive, the courts determined that claims are not made patent-eligible merely because they execute tasks with greater speed or efficiency. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, and 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Muir et al. (U.S. 2006/0128460).
Regarding claim 1, Muir discloses a method comprising, detecting, by an electronic processor associated with a gaming machine, user input that indicates use of the gaming machine, (“The gaming unit may detect an input at step 204 in various ways. For example, the gaming unit could detect if the player presses any button on the gaming unit”, par. 0102), gathering, by the electronic processor in response to detection of the user input, prompt-related data, (“The game-selection display generated at step 206 may include, for example, a list of video games that may be played on the gaming unit and/or a visual message to prompt the player”, par. 0103), generating, by the electronic processor based on the prompt-related data, a prompt, (fig. 16, part 700), dynamically generating, by the electronic processor, original gaming content, (“If step 704 determines that a new sequence needs to be created, step 706 will create that sequence. The sequence of adventure activities determined by step 706 may provide a sequential adventure activity or an adventure in which a player is directed to play a particular sequence of the gaming units 20 and 30 to a particular degree (e.g., a particular level of winnings, a particular amount of time, etc.) in order to advance through the sequence or sequential game”, par. 0149 and fig. 16, part 706), via a machine learning model, (“By allowing the machine learning software to record and analyze the player's responses to actual gaming situations, the machine learning software can analyze these data and develop rules for wagering and gaming in a style that mimics the corresponding styles of the player”, par. 0228), wherein the Examiner views the creating of adventure activities as being equivalent to generating original gaming content and the gaming system’s use of machine learning to analyze and develop rules as being equivalent the electronic processor generating the gaming content via a machine learning model. Muir further discloses presenting, by the electronic processor via a presentation device of the gaming machine, the original gaming content, (“After the routine 255 has sent configuration information to the gaming unit at step 708, the routine 255 enables the player to attempt the activity at step 710. The play of the activity at step 710 may be similar or identical to, for example, any of the electronic video-based gaming routines 210, 220, 230, 240 and/or 250 described above”, par. 0150), wherein the Examiner views enabling the player to attempt the activity, which may be an action adventure, (“If a player has selected an adventure (i.e., the adventure routine 255)”, par. 0147), as being equivalent to presenting original gaming content.
Regarding claim 2, Muir discloses wherein dynamically generating the original gaming content comprises generating, by the electronic processor via the machine learning model during play of a wagering game, original imagery representative of the prompt, (“If step 704 determines that a new sequence needs to be created, step 706 will create that sequence”, par. 0149).
Regarding claim 3, Muir discloses a further embodiment wherein prompt-related data comprises game-outcome data associated with one or more of a random outcome of the play of the wagering game or a prize amount associated with the play of the wagering game, and wherein the original imagery depicts at least a portion of the game-outcome data, (“If the routine 255 determines at step 714 that the adventure or sequential gaming activity is uncompleted, the player may be prompted as to whether he or she desires to continue play”, par. 0157).
Regarding claim 4, Muir discloses wherein the detecting the user input comprises detecting placement of a wager for a wagering game presented via the gaming machine, (“the input control panel 66 may be provided with a plurality of pushbuttons or touch-sensitive areas that may be pressed by a player to select games, make wagers”, par. 0071).
Regarding claim 5, Muir discloses wherein detecting the prompt-related data comprises detecting, via one or more devices communicatively coupled to the gaming machine, player-related data comprising one or more of player profile data, player loyalty account data, player preference data, player betting history data, player game selection data, player identity data, player motion data, player location data, player appearance data, or player sound data, (“gaming data may be extracted from historical gaming data that has been recorded, e.g., in connection with a player's use of a player tracking card or similar player tracking device. In some such implementations, the player will have previously selected a finer granularity of data sampling and storage than would be used in a normal player tracking program. In other words, not only the games played and wagers made would be stored, but also the player's decisions at various stages of play”, par. 0226).
Regarding claim 6, Muir discloses wherein generating the prompt is based on analysis, by the electronic processor via use of the machine learning model, of the prompt-related data, wherein the electronic processor uses the prompt-related data as one or more of input, parameters, or hyperparameters for the machine learning model, (“By allowing the machine learning software to record and analyze the player's responses to actual gaming situations, the machine learning software can analyze these data and develop rules for wagering and gaming”, par. 0228).
Regarding claim 8, Muir discloses wherein gathering the prompt-related data comprises detecting, by the electronic processor, user selections from a plurality of prompt options presented via a user interface associated with the gaming machine, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
Regarding claim 9, Muir discloses wherein the plurality of prompt options comprises one or more of words, graphics, or symbols presented on a plurality of input controls, wherein each input control corresponds to a respective one of a plurality of tokens of the prompt, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
Regarding claim 10, Muir discloses wherein the plurality of prompt options are organized according to a physical layout order, and wherein generating the prompt comprises constructing, based on the physical layout order, a syntactical composition of the plurality of tokens within the prompt, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
Regarding claim 11, Muir discloses wherein generating the prompt comprises constructing, based on a portion of the plurality of prompt options, conjunction tokens in the prompt, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
Regarding claim 12, Muir discloses detecting the user selections from the plurality of prompt options, generating, based on analysis of the user selections, one or more of prompt text, image prompts, or parameters of the prompt, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
Regarding claim 13, Muir discloses wherein gathering the prompt-related data comprises accessing at least one digital file that specifies one or more of an identifying attribute or a detected motion of a player of the gaming machine, wherein generating the prompt comprises including in the prompt a reference to the at least one digital file, and wherein dynamically generating the original gaming content comprises incorporating, by the machine learning model, the one or more of the identifying attribute or the detected motion of the player into the original gaming content, (“By allowing the machine learning software to record and analyze the player's responses to actual gaming situations, the machine learning software can analyze these data and develop rules for wagering and gaming in a style that mimics the corresponding styles of the player”, par. 0228).
Regarding claim 15, Muir discloses wherein the dynamically generating the original gaming content comprises dynamically generating a level of the original gaming content based on a subscription level associated with a user account logged into the gaming machine, wherein the user account is accessible via communication, by the electronic processor, with a player interface device communicatively coupled to the gaming machine, (“the casino gaming unit 48 may provide a way for a player to provide personal information relating to their identity, play history or statistics, etc. to the system 10 and a way for the player to send and receive a variety of information or data and/or value to and from the system 10 such as, for example, promotional incentives, cash or game play bonuses, loyalty incentives”, par. 0069), wherein the Examiner views the loyalty incentives as being equivalent to a subscription level associated with a user account.
Regarding claim 16, Muir discloses detecting, by the electronic processor in response to presenting the original gaming content, reaction data that indicates one or more of a preference, a rating, or a positive emotional response by a user of the gaming machine to presentation of the original gaming content; and using the reaction data to train the machine learning model to fine tune at least a portion of the original gaming content, (“step 706 may provide a sequence of gaming activities that includes gaming activities that a particular player has not played often or at all, gaming activities that are likely to be consistent with that player's preferences”, par. 0149).
Regarding claim 17, Muir discloses wherein the gathering the prompt-related data comprises determining a preference associated with presentation of a game character, wherein the generating the prompt comprises generating a script for the game character based on the preference, and wherein dynamically generating the original gaming content comprises generating audio of the script and dynamically synchronizing presentation of the audio of the script to a corresponding lip movement of the game character, (“For example, some adventure sequences may include games in which one player competes against another player, teams of players compete against one another and/or players compete against avatars, etc., generated by a logic device”, par. 0061), wherein the Examiner views competing against avatars as being equivalent the presentation of a game character comprising a script.
Regarding claim 18, Muir discloses wherein gathering the prompt-related data comprises detecting a game outcome value for a first classification of wagering game, wherein generating the prompt comprises specifying, in the prompt, a token that indicates a second classification of wagering game; and wherein dynamically generating the original gaming content comprises dynamically generating, by the electronic processor using the token, an animated indication of the game outcome value as an outcome of the second classification of wagering game, (fig. 16, parts 700, 714, 719).
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir et al. (U.S. 2006/0128460) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen (U.S. 2014/0274388) and in further view of Schueller (U.S. 2011/0244952).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as cited above, Muir discloses detecting and gathering user input, but is silent on detecting and gathering an appearance or sound of a player to determine an emotional state of a player. In a related art, Nguyen discloses a gaming system, (fig. 1), wherein Nguyen further discloses detecting user input that indicates use of the gaming machine, (“The computing system 600 also includes a user input device 608 that allows a user of the computing system 600 to interact with the computing system 600”, par. 0068), wherein Nguyen further discloses sensors that detect one or more of an appearance or sound of a player at the gaming machine and detecting a probable emotional state of the player, (“The player's movement, state, location, activity, physiological changes, facial expressions, and/or gestures may be received at 206. The player's movement, state, and/or gestures may be recorded using any known sensor on the gaming device. For example, a camera may be used to track the gaze of the player's eyes, facial expression, or gestures. Any known biological and/or physiological sensor may be used to detect the state of the player such as a temperature sensor, an IR camera for temperature imaging, a camera to sense facial emotions”, par. 0046), however, regarding claim 14, both Muir and Nguyen are silent on disclosing generating an avatar for a player. In a related art, Schueller discloses a gaming system, (fig. 1), that discloses detecting user input that indicates use of the gaming machine, (“a method of operating a gaming machine played by a player includes the steps of accepting a wager from a wager-input mechanism”, par. 0013), wherein Schueller further discloses generating an avatar of the player using, as one or more animated attributes of the avatar, the one or more of the identifying attribute or the detected motion of the player, (“enabling the game processor to execute player avatar software together with data related to the state of the gaming device and outcome of each game play, to generate the displayed player avatar image together with motion, emotion, vocal”, par. 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine the player emotional teachings of Nguyen into the art disclosed by Muir in order to analyze the player's state throughout game play may help the gaming establishment provide better customer service to its players, provide more customized advertisement to the players, help to determine products to provide to an establishment's customers, as disclosed by Nguyen, (par. 0064), and the generation of an avatar by Schueller in order to provide entertainment and companionship for a player during game play, as disclosed by Schueller, (par. 0009).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights