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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 11 and 12 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “detecting, by the processor in response to reception of a second input signal generated by the one or more sensors at the gaming device, a request to change presentation from a first type of the system-based content to a second type of the system-based content.”
The limitations of “transmitting, via an external-system interface by a processor in response to reception of a first input signal generated by one or more sensors at a gaming device, a video stream of system-based content to the gaming device, wherein the gaming device is configured to scale, using one of a plurality of scale values, a size of game content on a display device of the gaming machine relative to a size of the system-based content, and wherein the gaming device is configured to mix the video stream with a video signal of game content into a composite image for concurrent presentation of the game content and the system-based content via the display device; detecting, by the processor in response to reception of a second input signal generated by the one or more sensors at the gaming device, a request to change presentation from a first type of the system-based content to a second type of the system-based content; determining, by the processor in response to the request to change presentation from the first type of the system-based content to the second type of the system-based content, that presentation of the second type of the system-based using a first of the plurality of scale values would be inadequate to satisfy an image quality requirement for presentation of the second type of the system-based content; and in response to determining that presentation of the second type of the system-based using the first of the plurality of scale values would be inadequate to satisfy the image quality requirement for presentation of the second type of the system-based content, either modifying, by the processor, an appearance of the video stream in association with the second type of the system-based content to satisfy the image quality requirement for presentation of the second type of the system-based content using the first of the plurality of scale values, or transmitting, by the processor to the gaming device, a scale command with a second of the plurality of scale values that satisfies the image quality requirement for presentation of the second type of the system-based content, wherein the gaming device is configured to scale the game content with the second type of the system-based content using the second of the plurality of scale values” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “transmitting, detecting, determining and modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses detecting, by the processor in response to reception of a second input signal generated by the one or more sensors at the gaming device, a request to change presentation from a first type of the system-based content to a second type of the system-based content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
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 L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715