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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 05/19/2026 The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s showing under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) with respect to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0078621 to Alvarez is found persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 over Alvarez in view of Nelson is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is maintained, see detailed analysis below.
New rejections are made under 35 USC 112(b) in view of amendments, and 35 USC 112(a), see detailed analysis below.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 (and claims 2-18 by their dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments add to each independent claim: “wherein the value returned to the player corresponds to a share of amounts wagered by the other players attempting to win the cryptographic token.” Applicant cites ¶¶ [0016], [0026], [0030], and [0033]-[0034] as support for the amendments. The paragraphs cited describe pre-defined achievements order in a blockchain ledger and that blockchains may be open-source such that anyone can read the data and that blockchain may be used to determine and/or preserve records of token wins. None of the paragraphs describe returning to a player a share of amounts wagered by other players.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 and (similarly recited in Claims 19 and 20) requires the processor to “determine a player has won a cryptographic token associated with…” and “bind the cryptographic token to a player cryptowallet associated with the player,” and simultaneously requires “wherein the cryptographic token returns value to the player based on other players attempting to win the cryptographic token.” It is unclear how other players can attempt to win a token that has already been won by, and bound in a blockchain to the cryptowallet of the first player. It cannot be determined whether (a) “the cryptographic token” the other players attempt to win is the same token already awarded to and owned by the player; (b) the other players are attempting to win separate instances of a token of the same type; or (c) the other players are attempting to win a prize associated with the token rather than the token itself. Clarification is required. (For purposes of the art rejection, interpretation of (a)/(c) was applied – for example other token holding players wager in an effort to win the award associated with the token and a share of those wagers is returned to the player). Dependent claims 2-18 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “… wherein the cryptographic token comprises a first cryptographic token that is associated with a first brand and a second cryptographic token is associated with a second brand.” Claim 20 earlier recites “determining, by the processor circuit, the player has won a cryptographic token …”(singular). It is unclear whether the second cryptographic token is part of “the cryptographic token” or is a separately introduced element and how a single token can “comprise” two tokens associated with two different brands. Claim 18 raises a similar issue (“the cryptographic token comprises a plurality of cryptographic token”). Clarification is required.
Claims 15, 16, and 20 recites a “first brand” and a “second brand.” Neither the claims nor the specification defines what constitutes a “brand” and it cannot be determined whether a brand refers to a casino operator, a game theme, or something else. Clarification is required.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system in Claims 1-18, a gaming device in Claim 19, and a method in Claim 20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram. Under this step, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception and does the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
According to the specification, the “embodiments herein include using blockchain technology to create a token-ecosystem for slot-games including, for example, land-based, online, and lottery, among others.” Spec. 3. More particularly, representative Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis): “1. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a player has won a cryptographic token associated with an open-source blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset;
provide the player with the cryptographic token herein the cryptographic token returns value to the player based on other players attempting to win
wherein the value returned to the player corresponds to a share of amounts wagered by the other players attempting to win the cryptographic token; [[and]]
based on providing the player the cryptographic token, store a token record in the open-source blockchain; and
bind the cryptographic token to a player cryptowallet associated with the player.”
Claim 1 generally can be characterized as a financial incentive and reward system implemented using blockchain technology. The recited steps in the instant claims (independent and dependent) can be characterized as rewarding a player, issuing a token, recording the token on a blockchain, allowing token trade or redemption, and/or modifying payout rules based on token ownership. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity – specifically, fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions (pooling amounts wagered by a group of participants and distributing a share of that pool to the holder of a winning entry) and managing interactions between people in the form of rules for conducting a wagering game. The Federal Circuit has held that rules of conducting a wagering game are abstract ideas. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Independent Claims 19 and 20 recite the same abstract idea with the addition of further wagering game rules. The limitations of dependent claims 6-18 include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
wherein the cryptographic token comprises a token type used to modify a wagering game provided by the designated slot wagering asset, wherein the token type comprises a cosmetic modification of a display of the designated slot wagering asset rules of the wagering game and commercial transactions (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the cryptographic token comprises a token type used to modify a wagering game provided by the designated slot wagering asset, wherein the token type comprises a modification to a payout mode (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises a change in trigger probabilities corresponding to a payout (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises a modification of game rules (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises enabling additions bonus rounds,
wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises activating a jackpot level to a higher jackpot level (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the cryptographic token is tradable during gameplay (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the cryptographic token is exchanged for currency (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the cryptographic token is transferred to another player in a transaction between the player and the another player (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein a first cryptographic token is associated with a first brand and a second cryptographic token is associated with a second brand that is different from the first brand, wherein the first cryptographic token is tradable with the second cryptographic token (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the player cryptowallet comprises a first player cryptowallet, wherein the first cryptographic token is issued by a first casino and stored in the first player cryptowallet that is associated with the first casino, wherein the second cryptographic token is issued by a second casino that is different from the first casino, and wherein the first cryptographic token is exclusive to the first casino relative to the second casino (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions),
wherein the processor circuit is further caused to provide a token eligibility definition that identifies a plurality of game play elements that the player completes to become eligible to receive the cryptographic token (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions), and
wherein the cryptographic token comprises a plurality of cryptographic tokens that comprises: a first cryptographic token providing a graphical change to gameplay, a second cryptographic token providing a first change in bonus trigger chances, and a third cryptographic token providing a second change in bonus trigger chances that is different from the first change in bonus trigger chances (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for conducting/playing a wagering game and fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions (pooling amounts wagered by a group of participants and distributing a share of that pool to the holder of a winning entry) and managing interactions between people in the form of rules for conducting a wagering game, which falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
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 ;
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)); and/or
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).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of independent Claims (and their respective dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a processor circuit, a memory circuit, an electronic gaming machine, open-source blockchain in which token record is stored, and player cryptowallet, are generically recited computer elements in the independent Claims that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processor and a memory as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1-20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018).
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The present claims do 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 recite a processor, and a memory. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
The specification describes the relevant computer systems in generic, functional, and conventional terms. For example, the specification simply refers to multiple special purpose and/or general-purpose processors and/or processor cores may be provided in the gaming device 100. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 72 and Fig. 2B. Moreover, the specification admits that the “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processing circuit of a general purpose computer, …. to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processing circuit of the computer or other programmable instruction execution apparatus, create a mechanism for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks..” Spec. ¶ 114. Such features are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional because they merely require generic and conventional computer components described at a high level of generality.
Additionally, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims (and their dependent Claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
AIA Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,645,888 to Farooq in view of U.S. Patent 11,830,309 to Nelson et al.
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) Farooq discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit (fig. 3 displays gaming machine controller 302 having a processor 304, Col. 5:38-52; see also fig. 4, Col. 8:20-40); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (fig. 3, non-transitory memory 306, Col. 5:38-2), cause the processor circuit to:
wherein the cryptographic token returns value to the player based on other players attempting to win
wherein the value returned to the player corresponds to a share of amounts wagered by the other players attempting to win the cryptographic token (Col. 3:33-36 “only wagers of at least the qualifying bet contribute to the token progressive jackpot”… Col. 9:46-60 “a portion of the wager is contributed toward the token progressive jackpot”…Col. 11:38-45, fig. 5, step 570 “the gaming server transmits to the jackpot server a portion of the wager as contribution to the progressive jackpot” … Col. 3:57 – Col. 4:25… “and the player receives a percentage - up to the entirety – of the accumulated token progressive jackpot, scaled to the wager.”; Claim 12 recites determining, by the at least one processor, a percentage of the current progressive jackpot amount eligible to be presented for the play of the electronic game based upon the input amount” … the value returned is therefore a share of the amounts wagered by the other players attempting to win the same token progressive).
Farooq discloses a jackpot that identifies a particular player/player account and a token progressive jackpot, and that is provided to and redeemed by players in association with a designated wagering game at a gaming machine (Col. 9:17-40, Col. 11:10-40) and that the token may be an electronic token whose data is stored on a player account or player card and includes the token identification and progressive jackpot identification (Abstract). However, it does not disclose:
determine a player has won a cryptographic token associated with an open-source blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset;
provide the player with the cryptographic token
based on providing the player the cryptographic token, store a token record in the open-source blockchain; and
bind the cryptographic token to a player cryptowallet associated with the player.
In a related invention, Nelson discloses:
determine a player has won a cryptographic token associated with an open-source blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset (fig. 1, blocks 104-114, fig. 2B, Col. 2:36-37,58-62, Col. 8:33-50 discloses the system operates with a decentralized, open-source blockchain to cause the creation of a non-fungible token associated with digital content related to the randomly determined designated outcome, … the determined game outcome is associated with a token creation event… Col. 9:25-38 discloses the token evidencing and corresponding to that machine and game play);
provide the player with the cryptographic token (fig. 1, blocks 114-118, fig. 2B message; Col. 8:33-50, Col. 14:33-67 discloses the created token is provided to the player – a notification of the creation is displayed and ownership is assigned in the blockchain to the player);
based on providing the player the cryptographic token, store a token record in the open-source blockchain (fig. 1, block 114, Col. 8:40-50 discloses creates, in a blockchain, (or operates with a non-fungible token service to create, in a blockchain) a non-fungible token as part of the award associated with the determined game outcome, …, Col. 2:58-67 discloses the token is a unique cryptographic entry” whose creation is written in a block on a blockchain; Col. 13:1-20 discloses the information stored in the blockchain includes the owner of the non-fungible token, a URL associated with the non-fungible token, a history of the non-fungible token, the digital content associated with the non-fungible token, and/or data associated with the non-fungible token (e.g., the date and time of an event the non-fungible token represents) … Col. 2:45-50 the blockchain is a decentralized open-source blockchain); and
bind the cryptographic token to a player cryptowallet associated with the player (fig. 1, block 116, Col. 14:33-47 discloses the system causes a transfer of the non-fungible token to occur in the blockchain as indicted in block 118. That is, upon an occurrence of a non-fungible token distribution event, the gaming establishment host system operates to transfer the non-fungible token from being owned, in the blockchain, by the gaming establishment host system to being owned, in the blockchain, by a crypto wallet associated with the player; Col. 14:48-67 discloses the crypto wallet contains one or more crypto keys of the player wherein following the gaming establishment host system creating (or causing the creation of) a non-fungible token, the system transfers the non-fungible token from being owned by a key associated with the gaming establishment host system to a key associated with the player that is held in a crypto wallet associated with the gaming establishment fund management system account maintained for the player).
Both Farooq and Nelson are analogous art in the same field of endeavor in that both references are directed to electronic gaming systems in which tokens are awarded to and redeemed by players in connection with wager-funded awards and both address the same problem of distributing token-based awards among casino patrons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Farooq’s jackpot token as Nelson’s cryptographic, blockchain recorded token because Nelson discloses replacing conventional paper/physical gaming instruments with blockchain based tokens precisely because “the increased security associated with non-fungible tokens (relative to paper … tickets) gives the operator and players benefits of blockchain security to reduce fraud and ensures confidence in the system (Col. 18:1-15) and because ownership can be cryptographically verified by any party using public/private key pairs (Col. 13:55-67).
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently Amended) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the open-source blockchain comprises a decentralized and distributed digital ledger that comprises portions of a data block (Nelson, Col. 2:58-62, Col. 12:42-67 discloses any suitable distributed ledger that enables recording and sharing of information across multiple data stores wherein each of the data stores (i.e., ledgers) includes the same data records, subject to maintenance and control through a distributed network of computing nodes).
Regarding Claim 3, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the designated slot wagering asset comprises a given electronic gaming machine (EGM) at a given location (Farooq, figs. 1, 4, Col. 8:20-35; Nelson, fig. 3, Col. 12:15-35).
Regarding Claim 4, (Currently Amended) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1 [[3]], wherein the [[EGM]] designated slot wagering asset comprises a plurality of EGMs that correspond to games that are in a same casino as one another (Farooq, Col. 1:30-36, fig. 4 shows a plurality of gaming machines 100 coupled to gaming server 410 and jackpot server 470; Col. 9:28-40 discloses jackpot tokens are redeemable for any game not having a progressive jackpot.
Regarding Claim 5, (Currently Amended) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1 [[3]], wherein the [[EGM]] designated slot wagering asset comprises a plurality of EGMs that correspond to EGMs in a plurality of different casinos (Farooq, Col. 1:30-36, Col. 8:22-35; Nelson, Col. 27:20-40).
Regarding Claim 6, (Currently Amended) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic token comprises a token type used to modify a wagering game provided by the designated slot wagering asset, wherein the token type comprises a cosmetic modification of a display of the designated slot wagering asset (Nelson, Col. 21:22-35 discloses a feature usable in association with a play of a game ... altering or otherwise modifying one or more features, aspects or parameters of one or more subsequently played games … Col. 21:36-50, Col. 22:45-55 discloses a feature modifying one or more symbols available to be generated for a subsequent play of a game, a stacked wild symbols feature; an expanding wild symbols feature, a feature modifying a theme of a game; and/or a feature modifying any game play feature associated with any play of any game of the present disclosure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate such a display-modifying benefit with Farooq’s token in order to increase player interest and entertainment (Farooq, Col. 4:30-36).
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic token comprises a token type used to modify a wagering game provided by the designated slot wagering asset, wherein the token type comprises a modification to a payout mode (Farooq, Col. 9:17-22 discloses upon receipt of the token ‘the token progressive jackpot is added to the based wagering game” and Col. 3:57 – Col. 4:25 the percentage of the token progressive jackpot player may win is set by the wager – a modification of the payout mode of the wagering game; Nelson, Col. 22:1-10 discloses a feature modifying an average expected payout of a subsequent play of a game; a feature modifying one or more awards available; a feature modifying a range of awards available; a feature modifying a type of awards available; a feature modifying one or more progressive awards; a feature modifying which progressive awards are available to be won).
Regarding Claim 8, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises a change in trigger probabilities corresponding to a payout (Nelson, Col. 21:66 – Col. 22:35; Farooq, Col. 3:57 – Col. 4:25).
Regarding Claim 9, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises a modification of game rules (Nelson, Col. 21:36 – Col. 22:50 discloses different modifications of the rules of the game).
Regarding Claim 10, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises enabling additions bonus rounds (Nelson, Col. 22:25-50, Col. 5:18-25).
Regarding Claim 11, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises activating a jackpot level to a higher jackpot level (Farooq, Col. 9:17-35, Col. 3:57 – Col. 4:25; Nelson, Col. 22:5-10).
Regarding Claim 12, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic token is tradable during gameplay (Nelson, Col. 17:10-17, 43-55).
Regarding Claim 13, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the cryptographic token is exchanged for currency (Nelson, Col. 17:35-43, 50-58).
Regarding Claim 14, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the cryptographic token is transferred to another player in a transaction between the player and the another player (Nelson, fig. 1, block 118; Col. 16:35-50, Col. 17:43-58).
Regarding Claim 15, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a first cryptographic token is associated with a first brand and a second cryptographic token is associated with a second brand that is different from the first brand, wherein the first cryptographic token is tradable with the second cryptographic token (Nelson, Col. 11:60 – Col. 12:15; Col. 11:5-20; Col. 17:43-58; Col. 22:45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate Farooq’s tokens with different establishment or game brands and to permit them to be traded in order to broaden the player base and increase player interest (Farooq, Col. 3:42-47, Col. 4:30-36).
Regarding Claim 16, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the player cryptowallet comprises a first player cryptowallet (Nelson, fig. 1, block 116, Col. 14:33-47 discloses the system causes a transfer of the non-fungible token to occur in the blockchain as indicted in block 118. That is, upon an occurrence of a non-fungible token distribution event, the gaming establishment host system operates to transfer the non-fungible token from being owned, in the blockchain, by the gaming establishment host system to being owned, in the blockchain, by a crypto wallet associated with the player),
wherein the first cryptographic token is issued by a first casino and stored in the first player cryptowallet that is associated with the first casino (Nelson, fig. 3, Col. 11:60 – Col. 12:15-35, Col. 8:42-60, Col. 14:48-67),
wherein the second cryptographic token is issued by a second casino that is different from the first casino (Nelson, fig. 3, Col. 11:60 – Col. 12:15-35, Col. 8:42-60, Col. 14:48-67), and
wherein the first cryptographic token is exclusive to the first casino relative to the second casino (Nelson, fig. 3, Col. 11:60 – Col. 12:15-35, Col. 8:42-60, Col. 14:48-67).
Regarding Claim 17, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor circuit is further caused to provide a token eligibility definition that identifies a plurality of game play elements that the player completes to become eligible to receive the cryptographic token (Nelson, Col. 11:5-20, Col. 24:55 – Col. 25:5).
Regarding Claim 18, (Original) Farooq in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic token comprises a plurality of cryptographic tokens that comprises: a first cryptographic token providing a graphical change to gameplay, a second cryptographic token providing a first change in bonus trigger chances, and a third cryptographic token providing a second change in bonus trigger chances that is different from the first change in bonus trigger chances (Nelson, Col. 21:22 – Col. 22:55, Col. 19:1-30; Col. 20:1-30).
Regarding Claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. In addition, Nelson discloses:
wherein the cryptographic token comprises a token type that causes a modification in a payout mode that corresponds to a change in trigger probabilities (Col. 21:66 – Col. 22:35 discloses modifying average expected payback percentage, modifying a triggering event of a play of a secondary or bonus game or modifying generation of designated symbol combinations), and
wherein the cryptographic token is exchanged for currency during game play (Col. 17:10-17, 35-58 discloses sale/redemption of the token for a monetary amount, including while the associated award determination is pending).
Both Farooq and Nelson are analogous art in the same field of endeavor in that both references are directed to electronic gaming systems in which tokens are awarded to and redeemed by players in connection with wager-funded awards and both address the same problem of distributing token-based awards among casino patrons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Farooq’s jackpot token as Nelson’s cryptographic, blockchain recorded token because Nelson discloses replacing conventional paper/physical gaming instruments with blockchain based tokens precisely because “the increased security associated with non-fungible tokens (relative to paper … tickets) gives the operator and players benefits of blockchain security to reduce fraud and ensures confidence in the system (Col. 18:1-15) and because ownership can be cryptographically verified by any party using public/private key pairs (Col. 13:55-67).
Regarding Claim 20, (Currently Amended) it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 above. In addition, Nelson discloses a method comprising:
wherein the cryptographic token comprises a first cryptographic token that is associated with a first brand and a second cryptographic token is associated with a second brand that is different from the first brand (Col. 9:25-38, Col. 11:60 – Col. 12:15; Col. 11:5-20; Col. 17:43-58; Col. 22:45-55), and
wherein the first cryptographic token is tradable with the second cryptographic token during game play (Col. 17:10-17, 43-55);
providing, by the processor circuit, a token eligibility definition that identifies a plurality of game play elements that the player completes to become eligible to receive the cryptographic token (Col. 11:5-20, Col. 24:55 – Col. 25:5, Col. 10:40-60).
Both Farooq and Nelson are analogous art in the same field of endeavor in that both references are directed to electronic gaming systems in which tokens are awarded to and redeemed by players in connection with wager-funded awards and both address the same problem of distributing token-based awards among casino patrons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Farooq’s jackpot token as Nelson’s cryptographic, blockchain recorded token because Nelson discloses replacing conventional paper/physical gaming instruments with blockchain based tokens precisely because “the increased security associated with non-fungible tokens (relative to paper … tickets) gives the operator and players benefits of blockchain security to reduce fraud and ensures confidence in the system (Col. 18:1-15) and because ownership can be cryptographically verified by any party using public/private key pairs (Col. 13:55-67).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As an initial matter, the Examiner acknowledges the Interview on May 14, 2026 with Applicant’s Attorney representative Mr. William Kelly and confirms the characterization that potential amendments directed to the 101 rejection were discussed and no agreement was reached as to allowability. Applicant’s response is fully responsive to the interview, and the amendments have been fully considered, but for the reasons given above they do not place the claims in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant’s argues that the claims do not recite matter within the enumerated groups of abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above under Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the pooling of amounts wagered by a plurality of players and return of a share of that pool to a token holder, together with rules governing when a token is won and what it modifies. These are fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, and rules for conducting a wagering game – enumerated as “certain methods of organizing human activity” in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and held abstract in In re Smith and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding. Applicant’s assertion that the claims “do not recite matter that falls within the enumerated groupings is not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, Applicant’s argues that the claims integrate any exception into a practical application because they recite “provide the player with the cryptographic token, wherein the cryptographic token returns value to the player based on other players attempting to win the cryptographic token, wherein the value returned to the player corresponds to a share of amounts wagered by the other players attempting to win the cryptographic token.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the language cited is the abstract idea itself, not an additional element. Determining who wins and distributing a share of the wagers to the winner is the fundamental economic practice at the heart of the claim. The exception itself cannot supply the integration into a practical application. The additional elements must be evaluated separately and here they are a generic processor, a generic memory, a generic EGM, and conventional blockchain storage. Additionally, the recited limitation changes what value a player receives and where it comes from, which is an economic/wagering outcome. It does not change how any computer or network operates. Lastly, the limitation does not implement any of the MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e) considerations – it is not an improvement to computer functionality, is not a particular machine beyond the generic EGM, does not affect a transformation of an article, and does not otherwise apply the exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to gaming.
On page 12, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides “a special-purpose cryptographic token built using an open-source blockchain to allow for data stored on the open-source blockchain to be read by anyone, increasing the security of authentications performed for transactions including wins of cryptographic tokens. This solves a unique technical problem within the field of gaming devices due to the increased security and authentication requirements for gaming devices, which are more stringent than the security and authentication requirements placed on general purpose computing devices.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement is not recited in the claimed subject matter. The claims only recite that the blockchain is “open-source” and that “a token record” is stored in it. The claims do not recite the content or structure of the token record, or any authentication or verification operation performed against the blockchain. The specification describes the token record and its relationship to the blockchain ([0085]-[0089]). An improvement must be reflected in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(a) (“the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”). Applicant cites ¶ [0033], which states that “blockchains may be open-source. In such cases, anyone may be able to read data that is in the blockchains. For example, some embodiments provide that a blockchain may primarily be used for determining and/or preserving records of token wins. In some embodiments, previous wins may be written into the blockchain, permanently.” That passage is a recitation of the inherent properties of a public blockchain used for its ordinary purpose – not a disclosure of a technical improvement to the blockchain, to the EGM or the authentication process. The specification does not recite or identifies a technical problem in the operation of gaming devices or ledgers, and no technical solution. The assertion that gaming devices have more stringent security and authentication requirements, and that the claimed token addresses them is not disclosed in the cited passages.
Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on the Ex parte Desjardins update is misplaced. The updated guidance provides that the specification is evaluated to determine whether “the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.” In Desjardins, the specification identified a specific, named technical problem in the art and a specific technical mechanism by which the claimed training strategy solved it (preserving performance on earlier tasks while reducing storage requirements) and the corresponding limitations were recited in the claim. Here by contrast, the specification identifies no technical problem, describes no mechanism, and the claims contain no limitation corresponding to the asserted security or authentication benefit.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the arguments on pages 12-15, about the prior art of Alvarez, Applicant’s arguments is persuasive. This prior art is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues that “Nelson fails to teach or suggest a system configured to "determine a player has won a cryptographic token associated with an open-source blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset" as recited by Claim 1 and similar recitations in Claims 19 and 20,” therefore Claims 1, 19 and 20 are allowable for at least this reason. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nelson on Fig. 1, depicts determining a game outcome for a play of a game (block 104), determining whether the determined game outcome is associated with a non-fungible token creation event (diamond 112), and if so, creating, in a blockchain, a non-fungible token as part of the award associated with the determined game outcome (block 114). See also Col. 8:33-50. The blockchain is expressly an open-source, decentralized blockchain (Nelson, Col. 2:36-55 discloses he system operates with a decentralized, open-source blockchain to cause the creation of a non-fungible token associated with digital content related to the randomly determined designated outcome).
Nelson also discloses that the token is cryptographic (Col. 2:58-67 disclosing a non-fungible token is a unique cryptographic entry, Col. 13:55-67).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights