DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a slot machine interface board (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-11, and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 12-18.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
Claim 1: A slot machine interface board comprising:
a first wired communication interface supported by a housing of an electronic gaming machine and operable to serially communicate, in accordance with a slot accounting system protocol, with a master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine;
a second communication interface supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine, the second communication interface being different from the first wired communication interface and operable to communicate with a server of a gaming establishment patron management system;
a third communication interface supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine, the third communication interface being different from the first wired communication interface, different from the second communication interface and operable to communicate with a server of a gaming establishment electronic gaming machine management system;
a processor supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a receipt of first data associated with a player account wirelessly communicated from a first mobile device executing a first mobile device application when the electronic gaming machine is operating in a player configuration state, operate with the server of the gaming establishment patron management system to establish, based on data communicated via the second communication interface, a player session associated with the player account, and
before a termination event occurs in association with the player session, after an occurrence of an event associated with a required operator intervention, and responsive to a receipt of second data associated with an operator identifier wirelessly communicated from a second mobile device executing a second mobile device application:
cause a communication, via the first wired communication interface, of data that results in a modification of the electronic gaming machine to operating in an operator configuration state, and
operate with the server of the gaming establishment electronic gaming machine management system to establish, in association with the electronic gaming machine operating in the operator configuration state and based on data communicated via the third communication interface, an operator session associated with an operator.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior involving interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving multiple parties in the context of a game interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a first wired communication interface(including: a processor, and memory), an electronic gaming machine(including: a housing, and a master gaming controller), servers, and mobile devices it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, tablet devices, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a first wired communication interface(including: a processor, and memory), an electronic gaming machine(including: a housing, and a master gaming controller), servers, and mobile devices amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0051]-[0062]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0051]-[0062]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a first wired communication interface(including: a processor, and memory), an electronic gaming machine(including: a housing, and a master gaming controller), servers, mobile devices, and a card reader as respectively presented in certain claims that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of each of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B because they each present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and accordingly for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the above dated response the Applicant presents the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, including:
i. That when considered as a whole the claimed invention solves the technical problem of prior slot machines by enabling operator access without a physical identifier and without formal termination of a player session, which the claimed invention solves by not employing the alternative process of a player having to remove a physical identifier from the device (causing a formal termination of their session) when an operator is required to provide their physical identifier to the device to resolve an issue (Applicant Remarks pages 9-10); and
ii. that the slot machine interface board and connected devices should be understood to further support the presence of a practical application involving a particular machine (Applicant Remarks pages 10-11).
Responsive to the preceding the following is respectfully noted in corresponding order and enumeration as the applicant arguments presented herein above:
i.a) Responsive to the applicant’s remarks of this section, it is noted that Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. explicitly presents on page 12 of the decision “In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity…Rather, they are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the enhanced functionality that is referenced in Enfish is fairly understood to describe the functionality of the computer itself and a specific improvement to the way computers operate but would specifically not support other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. In the instant application the plain focus of the claim is on a set of rules for determining how a player and operator log into a system, for which a computer is utilized in its ordinary capacity to enact and accordingly the claimed invention does not meet the eligibility criteria as discussed in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. as presented.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the features Applicant identifies as the inventive concept are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
Enabling user’s and operators to have sessions on the same device without requiring only one session to be active at a time describes the instructions on how the device that is different from a device that requires the use of physical identifiers operates and is utilized but does not provide a new or unconventional mechanism for multiple users to interact with the same device that requires the use of physical identifiers. While it is understood from the Applicant’s remarks, that the advantage is tied to using a device that does not need physical identifiers to be used by the users on machine equipped to read only a singular physical identifier at a time enables multiple users/operators to have a session on the same device, the removal or substitution of a physical identifier is understood to define the use of an alternative type of machine that does not enhance the functional capability of an underlying device that requires the use of physical identifiers itself.
ii.a As noted in the rejection above, while the claimed invention include the hardware elements of a first wired communication interface(including: a processor, and memory), an electronic gaming machine(including: a housing, and a master gaming controller), servers, and mobile devices it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, tablet devices, game consoles, and the like. While the Applicant’s remarks are understood to propose that electronic gaming machine and associated slot machine interface board and define a particular machine when considered in combination it is respectfully noted that these components are not defined within the presented application in a manner that would exclude a conventional computing devices as proposed.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights