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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 8/28/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 31-41 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 1-4, 6-10, and 31-41 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, 31, and 40 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the rules of a wagering game, see, e.g., In re: Smith; and/or claim the rules of a game which has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identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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:
determining, that a player has won a poker game […];
determining, based on the player winning the game, to award a […] token allowing the player to play the poker game […] using a [customized] poker card, the […] token comprising a style identifier and a block identifier referring to an associated [data] block […];
receiving […] an indication of the […] token;
authenticating the […] token […] based on the block identifier;
determining, […] based on the style identifier, to output a game feature, wherein the game feature;
determining that an event associated with triggering output of the game feature has occurred; and
outputting […] the game feature based on determining that the event has occurred, wherein outputting the game feature comprises replacing a card of a poker hand of the player in the poker game with the [customized] poker card, wherein the [customized] poker card has a different design than default cards of the poker game.
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, and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a system comprising processing circuitry and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; a cryptographic token’; an electronic gaming machine (EGM); a blockchain block comprising cryptographic hash data indicative of a result of a hashing function associated with a blockchain; authenticating a cryptographic token against a blockchain based on a block identifier, 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 a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; a cryptographic token’; an electronic gaming machine (EGM); a blockchain block comprising cryptographic hash data indicative of a result of a hashing function associated with a blockchain; authenticating a cryptographic token against a blockchain based on a block identifier, 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
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 31-41 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:
(see, e.g., F1);
determining, that a player has won a poker game provided by a video poker electronic gaming machine (EGM);
(see, e.g., p329);
determining, based on the player winning the game, to award a cryptographic token allowing the player to play the poker game at the video poker EGM using a non-fungible token (NFT) poker card, the cryptographic token comprising a block identifier referring to an associated blockchain block,
(see, e.g., p330 (“determining…to award a cryptographic token”); see, e.g., p249-250 (“non-fungible token (NFT) poker card”); see, e.g., F10 (“block identifier”));
wherein the associated blockchain block comprises cryptographic hash data indicative of a result of a hashing function associated with a blockchain;
(see, e.g., F10);
receiving, at the video poker EGM, an indication of the cryptographic token;
(see, e.g., F13, 1002);
authenticating the cryptographic token against the blockchain based on the block identifier;
(see, e.g., F13, 1006);
determining, by the video poker EGM based on the cryptographic token, to output a game feature;
(see, e.g., F13, 1008);
determining that an event associated with triggering output of the game feature has occurred; and
(see, e.g., F13, 1010);
outputting, via a display device of the video poker EGM, the game feature based on determining that the event has occurred, wherein outputting the game feature comprises replacing a card of a poker hand of the player in the poker game with the NFT poker card, wherein the NFT poker card has a different design than default cards of the poker game
(see, e.g., F13, 1012).
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 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 Claims 31-39, see rejections of Claims 1-4 and 6-10.
In regard to Claims 40-41, see rejections of Claims 1-2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
748
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant does not, in fact, claim employing “a projector and a poker table”. What is more, employing a computer program in order to provide “’unique’ or ‘personalized’ experiences” to human beings in order to increase their enjoyment is not patent eligible under the Mayo test. See, e.g., from the CAFC’s decision in USAA v. PNC Bank:
PNG
media_image3.png
258
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 9.
Applicant also argues that its claimed invention is analogous to that of Dejardins. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s invention does not concern an improvement to machine learning. What is more, Applicant’s claimed invention is more closely analogous to those held to be patent ineligible in, e.g., In re: Smith, as being directed to a wagering game; as well as Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin, in regard to the rules of a game embodied on an electronic gaming machine.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejections are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights