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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s submission of a response on 3/4/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant cancelled claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13 and 15 – 20 and added new claims 21 – 40. Therefore, claims 21 – 40 are pending.
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 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21 – 40 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 21 – 40 recites at least one step or instruction for a casino table game, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 21 – 40 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 21 recites:
A table-based gaming system comprising:
a first table system of a first gaming table having a first playing surface and a first game layout associated with said first playing surface, said first game layout defining a first wagering location and used to present at least one game with one or more physical game pieces and having an associated first display device for viewing from said first gaming table wherein said first table
system comprises a first processor communicatively coupled to a first wagering location input
receiving device, a first dealer input device and said first display device;
said first wagering location input receiving device configured to receive input from a first player at a first wagering location of said first gaming table, said first processor configured to receive an output of said first wagering location input receiving device;
a first memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the first processor to:
receive a first game input from a first dealer input device, the game input confirming an initiation of a first game (managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG and a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018));
receive a first wager input from said first input receiving device, the wager input confirming that a first wager was placed by said first player (managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG and a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., a wagering game, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game));
determine, after receipt of the first game input and the first wager input, if a first bonus trigger input is received from a dealer input device based upon an occurrence of a first bonus event trigger in the first game (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG and a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018));
responsive to determining that the first bonus trigger input was received (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018)):
receive a first spin input from the first input receiving device, the first spin input causing a first display device to display a spinning of at least part of a first award wheel, the displayed first award wheel comprising a plurality of different first awards, at least one but not all of the plurality of different first awards being a further spin award (managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
cause the first display device to display an indicated one of the plurality of different first awards (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
responsive to the indicated one of the plurality of different first awards being said further spin award (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018)):
cause the first display device to display a spinning of at least part of different second award wheel, the different second award wheel comprising a plurality of different second awards (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and
cause the first display device to display an indicated one of the plurality of different second awards (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and
receive a second game input from the dealer input device, the second game input confirming the initiation of a second game (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
and
a second table system corresponding to a second gaming table comprising:
a second processor, said second processor and said first processor linked within said table- based gaming system;
a second input receiving device configured to receive input from a second player at said second gaming table, said second processor in communication with said second input receiving device to receive an output of said second input receiving device (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
a second memory device that stores a plurality of second instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the second processor to:
receive a third game input from a second dealer input device, the third game input confirming an initiation of a third game (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
receive a second wager input from said second input receiving device, the second wager input confirming that a second wager was placed by said second player (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
determine, after receipt of the third game input and second wager inputs, if a second bonus trigger input is received from the second dealer input device based upon an occurrence of a second bonus event trigger in the third game (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);
responsive to determining that the second bonus trigger input was received (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG):
receive a second spin input from the second input receiving device, the second spin input causing a second display device to display a spinning of at least part of a third award wheel, the displayed third award wheel comprising a plurality of different third awards, at least one but not all of the plurality of different third awards being a spin another wheel award (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG); and
cause the second display device to display an indicated one of the plurality of different third awards;
responsive to the indicated one of the plurality of different third awards being said spin another wheel award (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);;
cause the second display device to display a spinning of at least part of a different fourth award wheel, the different fourth award wheel comprising a plurality of different fourth awards (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG);; and
cause the second display device to display an indicated one of the plurality of different fourth awards;
and
receive a fourth game start input from the second dealer input device, the fourth game start input confirming an initiation of a fourth game (a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar (Fed. Cir. 2018) and managing player behavior, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract
idea. Further, dependent Claims 21 - 40 merely 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 21 and 32 (and their respective dependent Claims 22 – 31 and 33 – 40) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 21 and 32), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a processor, memory device, input device, display device as recited in independent Claims 21 and 31 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements 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.
Furthermore, the processor and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21 and 32 (and their respective dependent Claims 22 – 31 and 33 – 40) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
a processor, memory device, input device, display device as recited in independent claims 21 and 32). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
To the extent the claimed “the indication of one of the second awards is based upon selection of an outcome from a lookup table” are generic, conventional, and well-known in the art and/or are devices and techniques that represent extra-solution activity.
For instance, US Pub No. 2009/0124371 to Gilmore et al. discloses that lookup tables are known in the art and may be constructed to provide a determined statistical frequency of any particular outcome in the table (see [0132]).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21 and 32 (and their respective dependent Claims 22 – 31 and 33 – 40) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 21 – 40 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a processor, memory device, input device, display device as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. 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.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 21 – 40 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of
how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the
prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution
that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 21 – 40 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 21 – 40 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 21 and 32 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 21 – 40 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 21 – 40 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 21 – 40 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant cancelled all previous claims and added new set of claims (21 – 40). Applicant added physical elements of a casino gaming table to help overcome the 101 rejection. However, after further review, the claims remain to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
The claims are still directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (following rules of a game) and fundamental economic practices (wagering) that are played on a gaming table.
Furthermore, display and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example (gaming table that consist of a playing surface, game layout, wagering location):
Oskwarek (US Patent. 6,655,690) teaches “the method of playing a card game of the present invention can be played: (i) in a casino or other wagering establishment in a manner similar to conventional card games, i.e. "live table version" wherein a group of players and a dealer are positioned at a gaming table, (ii) on electronic video gaming machines located in a casino other wagering establishment, or (iii) on linked, electronic video gaming machines located in a casino or wagering establishment” (see Col. 6, lines 23 – 34).
Additionally, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, including a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., a wagering game, which is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018), a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a wagering game) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., and/or a method of organizing human activities (e.g., accepting wagers from a human player and allowing the human player to play the game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
Fundamentally, therefore, the game requires no more than routine data management and display, which our reviewing court has found ineligible of patent protection. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display, without requiring a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it, is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of the idea). Further, as the claimed invention relates to organizing human activities in the form of displaying, accepting input and determining and displaying outcomes. Additionally, the claimed features could be practiced as a mental exercise or using pen and paper. Therefore, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea similar to those discussed in relevant court decisions.
Additionally, the October 2019 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility states “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and “[c]laims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (p. 8). Furthermore, the October 2019 Update states, “examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (p. 8).
Further, the October 2019 Update states on pages 4-5 that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person as well as activity that involves multiple people (first and second player). The guidance also notes that certain activities between a person and a computer may still fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the instant claims, which include benefit transactions involving one or more users, are properly construed as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”), as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology to technical field.
Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a casino table game executed on generic and conventional computing devices. There is not any indication that the invention provides a technological solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claimed invention merely recites a technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be practiced. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715