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 6/16/26 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 1-19 and 21 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 1-19 and 21 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, 9, and 17, 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as a method of organizing human activity; 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identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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 of […] gaming […], the method comprising:
receiving game data […], the game data comprising a game identifier (ID) associated with [a] game […];
identifying help data for the […] game […], wherein the help data is identified based upon the game ID and from pluralities of help data associated with pluralities of game IDs;
transmitting the help data for the […] game […], wherein the help data comprises one or more first help pages and one or more first bingo patterns associated with a first return-to-player (RTP) for the […] game;
receiving modification data associated with updated the first RTP to a second RTP;
generating updated help data for the […] game, the updated help data comprising one or more second help pages and one or more second bingo patterns associated with a second return-to-player (RTP) for the […] game;
transmitting the updated help data for the […] game […]
receiving input data […], the input data comprising an input amount provided for a play of the […] game […]; and
transmitting output data […], the output data comprising an output amount for the play of the […] game based upon at least one of the one or more second bingo patterns transmitted in the updated help data.
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., at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable memory containing instructions that embody Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, and/or an electronic gaming device, 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., at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable memory containing instructions that embody Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, and/or an electronic gaming device, 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 2A-2B from Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 in regard to claiming a “practical application”:
PNG
media_image1.png
364
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. In regard to “practical application”, the MPEP provides examples of Supreme Court and CAFC decisions where a claimed invention has been held to be directed to patent eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I). Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument, such as from these examples, that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient.
Furthermore, generating help information is merely providing a display subsequent to collecting game data, identifying help data based on that game data and thereby abstract as a mental process under, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and/or Yousician (non-precedential). Transmitting data across a network (e.g., from a server to a gaming device) is not “significantly more” than Applicant’s abstract idea. See the CAFC’s opinion in, e.g., Ultramercial in this regard. Likewise, collecting modification data, analyzing that modification data to generate additional bingo patterns, and then displaying those bingo patterns is abstract as a mental process and for the reasons stated just supra. Applicant’s alleged “improvements” are not, in other words, analogous to any of the case law examples of patent eligible subject matter listed in MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant further argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
244
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code wherein some of the code is executed on one computer and some on another does not increase the speed/efficiency of any of the claimed computers generally. In terms of, the claimed computers cannot generally run the Applicant’s or any other computer program any faster than they otherwise would as a result of this embodiment. Likewise, embodying Applicant’s abstract ideas such that certain data is stored on some computers and not others does not generally improve the ability of any of the memories on those computers to store more any type of data or access it faster. Applicant’s alleged “improvements” are not, in other words, analogous to any of the case law examples of patent eligible subject matter listed in MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant further argues on page 10 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image3.png
216
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As pointed out supra, providing help information in regard to a certain game is abstract as a mental process. And providing an overlay of visual information is something that can be done by hand and, thereby, also abstract. See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in IBM v. Zillow (2021-2350; 10/17/22), slip. op., page 4, in this regard.
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