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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 7/24/26. Claims 1, 6, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-22 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 1- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 recites a gaming method comprising: forming a network including a central computer having one or more processors, one or more online games of chance and/or one or more live games of chance and/or one or more electronic gaming machines each in communication with said central computer. The limitation of forming a network including a central computer having one or more processors, one or more online games of chance and/or one or more live games of chance and/or one or more electronic gaming machines each in communication with said central computer, 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 “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” language, “forming” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about a plurality of games of chance at the same time. Similarly, the limitations of: configuring and establishing are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 12. 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements – “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic”. The “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do 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 elements of using “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” 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. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-11 and 13-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 7, 13, and 18 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. The claims are based on limitations which are considered optional (see rejection below), therefore rendering the claims indefinite. Lines 12 and 13 of the independent claims still contain optional limitations.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2023/0186726 A1 to Petersen et al. (hereinafter “Petersen”).
Concerning claim 1, Petersen discloses a gaming system comprising: a central computer having one or more processors (paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0018]); a network comprising:
one or more online games of chance and/or one or more live games of chance and/or one or more electronic gaming machines each in communication with said central computer (paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0018]);
wherein said central computer manages a weighted progressive jackpot funded by play across said network of said one or more online games of chance and said one or more live games of chance and said one or more electronic gaming machines (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036] – the gaming device associated with the maintained progressive award is a slot machine, a video poker machine, a video lottery terminal, a terminal associated with a live table game, a sports betting terminal, etc.); and
wherein progressive jackpot payout amounts associated with said progressive jackpot are based on weighted odds of obtaining a progressive outcome trigger at each game played across said network of said one or more online games of chance and/or said one or more live games of chance and/or said one or more electronic gaming machines (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Usage of the term “and/or” is deemed to be optional language, as there remains the possibility that the claim limitations based upon the “and/or” condition are not exercised or triggered. Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the “and/or” condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. Accordingly, conditional limitations that are not recited as structure that is capable of or configured to perform the conditional function may render the conditional limitation as “optional” and not truly “conditional.” The M.P.E.P. provides, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” See M.P.E.P § 2111.04; see also M.P.E.P §§ 2103(C) and 2173.05(h). Furthermore, In Re Scott E. Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) states “[t]he Board ruled that this additional content did not narrow the scope of the claim because these limitations are stated in the permissive form “may.” As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted. As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, the Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed (i.e., the remaining steps do not occur). Applicant is encouraged to incorporate claim language that addresses the steps performed should the optional claim limitations fail or recite that there is, at least, an active “determination” step which determines that the triggering condition has been satisfied.
Concerning claims 2, 7, 13 and 18, Petersen discloses wherein said live games of chance include live poker tables, electronic poker tables and online poker tables (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Concerning claims 3, 8, 14 and 19, Petersen discloses wherein said online games of chance are controlled by a server with one or more processors running executable instructions (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Concerning claims 4, 9, 15 and 20, Petersen discloses further comprising a display depicting weighted jackpot payout amounts for said progressive outcome trigger at each game played across said network (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Concerning claims 5, 11, 16 and 22, Petersen discloses wherein said progressive jackpot is funded using progressive wagers separate from primary game wagers (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Concerning claims 6, 12, and 17 see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claims 10 and 21, Petersen discloses wherein said two or more jackpots are funded with progressive wagers of different denominations (paragraphs [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are not an abstract idea, and the claim elements amount to significantly more that the exception. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than reciting “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” language, “forming” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about a plurality of games of chance at the same time. 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The “computer”, “one or more processors” and “electronic” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection, lines 12 and 13 of the independent claims still contain optional limitations.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection, Applicant argues that Petersen does not disclose including live games of chance in the weighted progressive. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least paragraphs [0017]-[0019], Petersen discloses the gaming device associated with the maintained progressive award is a slot machine, a video poker machine, a video lottery terminal, a terminal associated with a live table game, a sports betting terminal, etc. Therefore, Petersen discloses including live games of chance in the weighted progressive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights