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 .
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter including mental steps and method of organizing human activity.
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of a mental process as well as a method of organizing human activity and a series of mental processes.
5. The claim language recites the steps of playing a dice tile game wherein the tiles are organized into a particular areas to indicate winning combinations of said tiles. The game further includes generating the dice tiles and placing them in a particular area before organizing the tiles and in said winning combinations. However, this is merely a reflection of mental steps for playing a card game in the same manner one plays solitaire or poker, that uses a computer as a tool for performing said steps. Additionally, rules for a game also reflects a method of organizing human activity as stated by MPEP 2106 (“The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.”). Thus, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application because the claims are directed towards rules for a dice tile game, which is not a problem rooted in computer history. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer with generic computer components including “a housing comprising an access door; a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing and that monitors the access door; a plurality of output devices comprising: a display device supported by the housing, a player tracking display supported by the housing, a ticket printer supported by the housing, and a speaker supported by the housing; a sound card supported by the housing and operable with the speaker; 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 validator 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, after the validator validates the physical currency or the physical ticket, and after the player tracking card reader reads a player identification from a player tracking device.” However, the prior art identifies as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see LeMay (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0243925, see paragraph [0006]; Breckner U.S. PGPUB 200/60205513; Beadell (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0113709, see paragraph [0021]), Rudolph (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0121836, see paragraph [0034]). Examiner view the authentication function as merely a function of the conventional parts and not a technical improvement to be considered in the as part of the inventive concept.). The claim is directed to an abstract idea that lacks significantly more and thus is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to recite the structure of “a housing comprising an access door; a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing and that monitors the access door; a plurality of output devices comprising: a display device supported by the housing, a player tracking display supported by the housing, a ticket printer supported by the housing, and a speaker supported by the housing; a sound card supported by the housing and operable with the speaker; 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 validator 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, after the validator validates the physical currency or the physical ticket, and after the player tracking card reader reads a player identification from a player tracking device.” However, in the Step 2B analysis to determine whether the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter, these structural elements are well understood, common, and routine in the art as demonstrated by the prior art of LeMay (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0243925, see paragraph [0006]); Breckner (U.S. PGPUB 200/60205513); Beadell (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0113709, see paragraph [0021]), and Rudolph (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0121836, see paragraph [0034]).
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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
