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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 07/01/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a gaming system comprising: a housing comprising an access door; a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, that monitors the access door, and that causes a signal to be sent to a remote server when the access door is opened; a plurality of output devices comprising a display device supported by the housing; a plurality of input devices comprising: a touch screen input device supported by the housing and operable with the display device, an acceptor supported by the housing, a player tracking card reader supported by the housing, and a cash-out button supported by the housing; a processor supported by the housing; and a trusted memory device supported by the housing and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original, the trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, via the display device, of a credit balance after the acceptor received a physical currency or a physical ticket, and after the player tracking card reader reads a player identification from a player tracking device, wherein the a plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by the display device of selectable sets of different amounts; cause a display, by the display device, of a first selected set of the selectable set of different amounts; cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a hand based on the first selected set of different amounts; cause a display, by the display device, of indications of different runs of the hand, and for each run, a tile application area associated with that run and an indication of tiles required to complete the run; cause a display by the display device of the different amounts of the first selected set associated with the different runs; cause a display, by the display device, of a tile accumulation area; cause a display, by the display device, of symbol display elements that comprise different tiles and symbols that are not tiles; cause a display, by the display device, of activations of the symbol display elements; cause a display, by the display device, of certain of the different tiles and certain of the different symbols associated with the activations of the symbol display elements; cause a display, by the display device, for each of the displayed tiles, of an indication of whether the tile is accumulated and displayed in the tile accumulation area or the tile is discarded; cause a display, by the display device, for the displayed tiles in the tile accumulation area, of indications of tiles placed in the tile application areas associated with the runs; cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs, an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles placed in the tile application area associated with the run and that are required to complete the run; and cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a completion of the hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs. Each of the underlined elements above are certain methods of organizing human activity as they are merely rules for managing a game. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because merely displaying the game via a display device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but rather are extra solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, memory, and a display device are generic computing parts which the Supreme Court in Alice determine is not sufficient to bring the claim into patent eligibility. Additionally, as mentioned above, the fact that the various abstract ideas are incorporated into a display device that displays the game are extra solution activity that does not bring the claim elements into patent eligibility. Furthermore, Applicant’s additional elements related to components of gaming machines are all well known in the art at the time of the invention and thus does not bring the claims into patent eligibility. A security sensor (US PGPub 2011/0111836 to Acres at 0004)m various inputs and outputs (US PGPub 2011/0130199 to Bailey at 0032), and trusted memory (US PGPub 2019/0197828 to Pettie, page 7 third full paragraph).
All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 1-9 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. With regard to claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “certain of the different symbols,” emphasis added in the 16th limitation of the claim. All dependent claims are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
With regard with the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are similar to other claims that had their respectively 101 rejections reversed by the PTAB. However, each of these cases, while informative, are not precedential and, as such, do not have direct bearing on the present case. Applicant has heavily amended the claims to include components are specific to electronic gaming machines that are found within a casino environment, however, each of these components are well known in electronic gaming machines. As such, the only items which Applicant has invented here are the rules for what will run on the gaming machine, or in other words, the abstract idea of managing a wagering game. As is presently understood, adding such an abstract idea to a conventional gaming machine with conventional parts of that gaming machine, is not enough to make the claims patent eligible. Thus, the rejection based upon 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
With regard to the prior art, the rejection has been withdrawn. The rejection is withdrawn not because of any one particular element but rather the combination of elements seems to be enough now that creating a rejection would seem to be improper hingdsight.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
