CTFR 18/753,734 CTFR 87327 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 amendments dated 5/21/26 are hereby entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-9 and 12-20 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 1-9 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity, and/or the rules of a game. In regard to Claims 1 and 12, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming fundamental economic practices or principles which has been identified by the CAFC in decisions such as In re Smith as being a method of organizing human activity; and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: [a] method […] comprising: maintaining […] a progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award growth retention event associated with a first player: associating […] an amount of insurance against a resetting of any incremented value of the progressive award, and responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award triggering event: maintaining […] a current value of the progressive award in association with the first player, displaying […] to at least the first player, the current value of the progressive award, and while maintaining the current value of the progressive award in association with the first player: resetting […] the current value of the progressive award to a reset value in association with a second, different player, and displaying […] to at least the second, different player, the reset value of the progressive award. In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations in regard to a method of organizing human activity and/or the rules of a game. Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, and a display device, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…” Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, and a display device, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F4, 5A-C in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on page 7 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image1.png 216 680 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s own PGPUB at, e.g., paragraphs 1-2 describe the nature of Applicant’s invention as being directed to a gambling game. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image2.png 522 682 media_image2.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s claimed invention does not render any technological improvement but instead, at best, an entrepreneurial improvement, as far as improving the economics of casino management. Such improvements, however, are not patent eligible under the Mayo test. See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in Ultramerical, slip. op. , at page 8 in this regard. Applicant argues on page 8 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image3.png 308 710 media_image3.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The CAFC in Core Wireless did not hold that any computer program that displays a limited amount of information on a display screen is thereby patent eligible. The holding, instead, was in regard to a specific user interface that was claimed to employ certain elements that maximized the utility of a small mobile device display. And Applicant’s does not claim a user interface but, instead, merely the display of certain data on a computer screen. Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101: PNG media_image4.png 128 676 media_image4.png Greyscale Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Improvements to human performance potentially resulting from a computer display are not patent eligible under the Mayo test. See, e.g., the CAFC’s holding in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC (2017-2257; 4/18/19), slip. op. , page 9 (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem”, emphasis original). And increasing the proportion of time whereby a gaming machine is used by players, as opposed to being idle, is, again, an entrepreneurial improvement and also not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/753,734 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights