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
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-9 recite, a system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a plurality of leaderboards, wherein each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event independent of any player identifiers display on that leaderboard and each leaderboard comprises a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers that are associated with that leaderboard, wherein the plurality of player identifiers are associated, based on a ranked quantity of occurrences of the tracked event associated with that leaderboard, with the plurality of ranked positions, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event:
select a quantity of leaderboards from the plurality of leaderboards,
for each of the selected quantity of leaderboards, select a quantity of players associated with a quantity of player identifiers of the plurality of player identifiers associated with that selected leaderboard,
enable each of the selected quantity of players of each of the selected quantity of leaderboards to participate in a competition,
determine a winning player of the competition, and
communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition.
Claims 10-20 recite similar limitations to claim 1 above.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations recite steps of organizing a game by following rules.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of “communicate data that results in a display…” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of, “communicate data that results in a display by the display device, of an award being made available to the winning player of the competition” amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The system comprising a processor, a memory” is recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 recite at additional limitations of communicate data that results in a display which is a step of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Furthermore, the steps of displaying information is well known, routine and conventional. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claims 1-20 also recite a processor, a display device, a memory. Chen (US 2006/0116208 discloses it is well known of electronic gaming machine to comprise a display, processor, and memory device (paragraph 5).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event independent of any player identifiers display on that leaderboard and each leaderboard comprises a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers that are associated with that leaderboard, wherein the plurality of player identifiers are associated, based on a ranked quantity of occurrences of the tracked event associated with that leaderboard, with the plurality of ranked positions”.
Applicant’s specification fails to teach that each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event independent of any player identifiers display on that leaderboard.
Applicant’s specification discloses the system tracks one or more events that occur in association with that player during one or more gaming sessions. The system further ranks the different players based on the tracked events and causes one or more display devices to display, via one or more leaderboards, a designated quantity of such ranked players. The tracked events comprises leaderboards. The player identifiers are used to display on the leaderboards. The player identifier corresponds to an identifier used to identify a player, such as a name, a handle, an EGM identifier, an account number identifier, etc. Therefore, the leaderboards associated with a different tracked even are dependent on the player identifiers. The specification fails to discloses how the different tracked events with leaderboards are independent of any player identifiers displayed on that leaderboard.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein each leaderboard is associated with a different tracked event independent of any player identifiers display on that leaderboard and each leaderboard comprises a plurality of ranked positions and a plurality of player identifiers that are associated with that leaderboard, wherein the plurality of player identifiers are associated, based on a ranked quantity of occurrences of the tracked event associated with that leaderboard, with the plurality of ranked positions”.
The claimed is indefinite because is not clear how each leaderboard associated with a different tracked event is independent of any player identifiers when player identifiers are associated with the tracked event.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency.
Claims 10-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. More specifically, the claimed systems and method communicate data to display multiple leaderboards that each include ranked positions and player identifiers associated with the ranked positions while enabling players the opportunity to participate in a competition based on respective ranked positions on the multiple leaderboards. Such a configuration enables players to invoke a degree of strategy or skill in determining how to interact with the system in relation to a leaderboard (e.g., players may choose to prioritize a ranking on one leaderboard over a ranking on another leaderboard). The systems and methods therefore provide players more control in their participation in competitions via multiple leaderboard rankings while further making such players more cognizant of their respective rankings on the different leaderboard.
However, providing information to a player or having game information accessible is not an improvement to a technology. Communicating data so that information can be displayed, or used to invoke a degree of strategy amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. information to a player or having game information accessible is not an improvement to a technology.
Prior Art
The prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights