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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 06/26/2024 are noted.
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, a gaming device, and method in claims 1-20. 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. 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:
provide a blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset;
reward a player of the designated slot wagering asset by providing a cryptographic token that corresponds to the designated slot wagering asset, and that returns value to the player based on another player redeeming benefits corresponding to the cryptographic token; and
based on providing the player the cryptographic token, a token record is caused to be stored in the blockchain and the cryptographic token is bound to a player cryptowallet.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally can be characterized as a financial incentive and reward system implemented using blockchain technology. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various rules to reward a player, recording the token on a blockchain, allowing tokens to be tradable or redeemable and modifying payout rules based on token ownership. The abstract idea of the claims may be viewed, for example, as:
a fundamental economic practice (as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), 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); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.)
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. This characterization can be identified as abstract ideas such as fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity. Here, the blockchain is used as a ledger for recording token issuance and transfer — similar to Alice’s use of a generic computer to implement financial settlement. Further, dependent Claims 2 to 18 include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites 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, a memory, an electronic gaming machine, and blockchain are generically recited computer elements in the independent Claims (and their respective dependent 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 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).
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
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 Application Publication 2025/0078621 A1 to Alvarez et al. (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0366762 A1 to Nelson et al. (hereinafter Nelson).
Regarding Claim 1, Alvarez discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit (fig. 2B ¶ 48); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit ( fig. 2B ¶ 51), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
provide a blockchain that corresponds with a designated slot wagering asset (¶¶ 61-63 discloses a blockchain associated with a wagering asset);
reward a player of the designated slot wagering asset by providing a cryptographic token that corresponds to the designated slot wagering asset, and that returns value to the player based on another player redeeming benefits corresponding to the cryptographic token (¶¶ 65, 74 discloses benefits may be shared or transferred among cryptographic tokens. A benefit transaction indication for a first cryptographic token is sent from a first player device at a sending address associated with a first player. The benefit transaction indication includes the sending address and a receiving address of a second player device associated with another player); and
based on providing the player the cryptographic token, a token record is caused to be stored in the blockchain (¶ 61-63 discloses recording a blockchain recordation transaction).
However, Alvarez does not explicitly disclose … and the cryptographic token is bound to a player cryptowallet.
In a related invention, Nelson a gaming system in which tokens can be bounded to a player cryptowallet (¶¶ 53-59 discloses the system includes (or is otherwise associated with) a gaming establishment fund management system that maintains a gaming establishment fund management account associated with a crypto wallet. 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).
Alvarez discloses determining a plurality of cryptographic tokens, each including a common identifier indicative of the cryptographic token being part of the plurality of cryptographic tokens, and a player identifier indicative of a player associated with the cryptographic token. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a crypto wallet as defined by Nelson with the gaming system of Alvarez to further enhance the gaming system and providing additional options for player interaction and to increase player engagement, excitement, and enjoyment (Alvarez, ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the blockchain comprises a decentralized and distributed digital ledger that comprises portions of a data block (Nelson, ¶¶ 49-50 discloses a digital ledger).
Regarding Claim 3, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 57; Nelson, ¶¶ 111).
Regarding Claim 4, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the EGM comprises a plurality of EGMs that correspond to games that are in a same casino as one another (Alvarez, ¶¶ 57; Nelson, ¶¶ 111).
Regarding Claim 5, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the EGM comprises a plurality of EGMs that correspond to EGMs in a plurality of different casinos (Alvarez, ¶¶ 57; Nelson, ¶¶ 111).
Regarding Claim 6, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a token type comprises a cosmetic modification of a display of the designated slot wagering asset (Alvarez, ¶¶ 68).
Regarding Claim 7, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a token type comprises a modification to a payout mode (Alvarez, ¶¶ 68).
Regarding Claim 8, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 24).
Regarding Claim 9, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises a modification of game rules (Alvarez, ¶¶ 20-25).
Regarding Claim 10, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the modification to the payout mode comprises enabling additions bonus rounds (Alvarez, ¶¶ 20-21).
Regarding Claim 11, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 24).
Regarding Claim 12, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cryptographic token is tradable during gameplay (Alvarez, ¶¶ 21, 23).
Regarding Claim 13, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the cryptographic token is exchanged for currency (Alvarez, ¶¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 14, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 15, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 24-25).
Regarding Claim 16, Alvarez in view of Nelson discloses the system of claim 15, 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 (Nelson, ¶¶ 38).
Regarding Claim 17, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 25).
Regarding Claim 18, Alvarez 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 (Alvarez, ¶¶ 21, 24).
Regarding Claim 19, See Claims 1, 8, and 13.
Regarding Claim 20, See Claims 1, 12, and 15.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715