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 07/09/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/29/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained as presented below.
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant asserts the following: “The presently amended Claims each include numerous physical elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, this is consistent with at least two PTAB decisions that reversed rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 and that found claims directed to gaming machines included patent eligible subject matter. Exparte Fujisawa, Appeal 2018-003650, Appl. No 14/257,066, Tech. Center 3700 at 6 (PTAB February 26, 2019) and Ex parte Burghard, Appeal 2018-001861, Appl. No. 14/010,227, Tech. Center 3700 at 19 to 20 (PTAB November 22, 2019). ” (Page 11 of Remarks)
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, These arguments are not binding because they are referring to non-binding PTAB decisions (See 101 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant asserts the following: “In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(e) and these decisions, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended Claims add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment that transform the alleged judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.” (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding point (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, the new amended limitations are standard to gaming devices (See 101 Rejection below)
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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, 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 Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10 and 15, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
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 receives 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 plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by the display device, of indications of two different hands, and indications of runs of each of the two different hands, wherein for each of the two different hands, one of the runs in that hand is not in the other of the two different hands; cause a display, by the display device, of an indication of a selection of one of the two different hands, and indications of the runs of that selected hand; cause a display, by the display device, for each said runs of the selected hand, of an indication of tiles required to complete the run; cause a display, by the display device, of activations of symbol display elements; cause a display, by the display device, of tiles 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 or the tile is discarded; cause a display, by the display device, for the accumulated tiles, of placements of the tiles in association with the runs of the selected hand; cause a display, by the display device, for each of the runs of the selected hand, an indication of a completion of the run based on the tiles 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 selected hand after all of the indications of the completions of all of the runs of the selected hand.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 15) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., computer, processor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping;
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering (e.g., “screen shots displayed by a gaming system and illustrating parts of a plurality of plays of a primary wagering game (¶11-12)”), which is a form of hedging, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Formation of a gambling contract (i.e., by a player placing a wager the player is entering into a contract with a game operator), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Fundamental Economic Principles. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Fundamental Economic Principles to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, 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 claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “computer, processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a computer and processor are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by Swanberg et al. (US 20020155893 A1; hereinafter Swanberg). Swanberg discloses that a conventional computer (processor inherent to a conventional computer) is used to execute games (¶5). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In regards to newly amended limitations “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 receives a physical currency or a physical ticket, and after the player tracking card reader reads a player identification from a player tracking device”. These limitations are mainly referring to procedures that are standard, routine, well-known, or/and conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims.
The office relies on “GLI-11: Gaming Devices Version 3.0” by Gaming Labs Certified (hereinafter Version 3.0) and “GLI-11: Gaming Devices in Casinos Version 1.3” by Gaming Labs Certified (hereinafter Version 1.3) to show that these amended elements are standard, routine, well-known, or/and conventional. Machine doors and monitoring of these doors is a standard procedure (Version 3.0 Page 16-17), standard Card readers (Version 3.0 Page 31), touch screen input device (Version 3.0 Page 50), acceptors (Version 3.0 Page 29-30), and trusted memory device storing a plurality of instructions and configured to provide a gaming regulatory authority a root trusted authority that can be tracked and verified as original (memory that cannot be easily altered and shall authenticate all critical game files; Version 1.3 Page 47-48, Especially focused in Section 3.17.7).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-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, 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights