CTNF 18/798,440 CTNF 87327 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant’s amendments dated 5/18/26 are hereby entered. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is 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. 07-34-05 Claim 3 recites the limitation "the players". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or the rules of a game. In regard to Claims 1, 21, and 30 the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential) ; claim a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the rules of a wagering game, see, e.g., In re: Smith ; and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: a [method] comprising: […] receiving an indication of a [code]; determining that the [code] comprises an indication to output a game feature using a first style that is different than a default style associated with a wagering game; determining that an event associated with triggering output of the game feature has occurred; outputting the game feature using the first style based on determining that the [code] comprises the indication to output the game feature using the first style and determining that the event has occurred; and updating the [code] based on gameplay by a player associated with the [code]. In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment. Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a system comprising processing circuitry and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, employing a cryptographic token, employing a blockchain, and/or first and second devices, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…” Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a system comprising processing circuitry and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, employing a cryptographic token, employing a blockchain, and/or first and second devices, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 and F2A in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., p50 regarding employing a cryptographic token; and, e.g., F3 and text regarding same regarding employing a blockchain. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20230298435 A1 by Dalmia et al (“ Dalmia ”) . In regard to Claim 1, Dalmia teaches a system comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising: (F1); receiving an indication of a cryptographic token; (see, e.g., F13, 1002); determining that the cryptographic token comprises an indication to output a game feature using a first style that is different than a default style associated with a wagering game; (see, e.g., F13, 1006); determining that an event associated with triggering output of the game feature has occurred; and (see, e.g., F13, 1008); outputting the game feature using the first style based on determining that the cryptographic token comprises the indication to output the game feature using the first style and determining that the event has occurred (see, e.g., F13, 1010). In regard to Claims 2-3, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p69. In regard to Claim 4, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p300. In regard to Claim 5, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p249. In regard to Claim 6-7, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p249-250. In regard to Claims 8-9, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F14B, 1110. In regard to Claim 10, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F40. In regard to Claim 21, see rejections of Claims 1 and 4 . In regard to Claim 22, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p69. In regard to Claim 23, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p207. In regard to Claim 24, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p249-250. In regard to Claim 25, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p69. In regard to Claim 26, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F2. In regard to Claim 27-28, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F40. In regard to Claim 29, Dalmia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F10. In regard to Claim 30, see rejections of Claims 1 and 8 . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/798,440 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights