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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 6/15/2026. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are cancelled.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims 1-8 and 21-22 are a system, claims 9-16 are a method, and claims 17-18 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 9 and 17) recite:
receive a first input amount for a play of an electronic game associated with a first bingo card, wherein the first input amount is associated with a first denomination;
receive a second input amount for a play of a side electronic game associated with a second bingo card, wherein the first input amount is different from the second input amount, and wherein the second input amount is associated with a second denomination;
determine an outcome for the electronic game based upon a ball call and the first bingo card, wherein the outcome for the electronic game is associated with a first output amount;
determine an outcome for the side electronic game based upon the ball call and the second bingo card, wherein the outcome for the side electronic game is associated with a second output amount different from the first output amount;
translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein the reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination;
translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount;
combine the translated first input amount and the translated second input amount to a translated total input amount;
combine the first output amount and the second output amount to a total output amount; and
transmit game data to a server, wherein the game data includes the translated total input amount in the reporting format and the total output amount.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite a fundamental economic practice under methods of organizing human activity, specifically rules for conducting a wagering game- MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
An electronic gaming system comprising: at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (claim 1)
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (claim 9)
A method of metering in electronic gaming implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the method comprising: (claim 17)
[…] to a server
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 9, and 17 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 9, and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18 and 21-22 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to transmit input data to a bingo server, the input data comprising the first input amount and the second input amount. The limitation recites the additional element of the bingo server, however it is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to receive output data from the bingo server, and wherein the output data is associated with the ball call. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to determine the outcome for the electronic game and the outcome for the side electronic game based upon one or more messages received from a bingo server. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the game data further comprises at least one game identifier (ID) associated with one or more of the electronic game or the side electronic game. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the server comprises an accounting server that receives data from a plurality of electronic gaming devices. The limitation recites the additional element of an accounting server, however it is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the reporting denomination comprises a one-cent denomination. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the game data is transmitted as a single play of a game, the game comprising the play of the electronic game and the play of the side electronic game. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites wherein the at least one processor comprises a game broker module, and wherein the game broker module is configured to: transmit the first input amount and the second input amount to a bingo server; receive outcome data from the bingo server, the outcome data associated with the ball call, the first bingo card, and the second bingo card; generate the game data; and transmit the game data to the server, the server comprising an accounting server. While the claim language recites the additional elements of game broker module, bingo server, and an accounting server, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 22 recites wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine a game identifier (ID) for the play of the electronic game and the play of the side electronic game, the game ID associated with the first input amount and the second input amount, wherein different game IDs are assigned to different combinations of input amounts for the electronic game and the side electronic game; and include the game ID in the game data, thereby indicating a combination of the first input amount for the play of the electronic game and the second input amount for the play of the side electronic game, along with the translated total input amount, in the game data. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 10-16, and 18 recite parallel claim language to claims 1-8 and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons set forth above.
All claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of
determine an outcome for the electronic game based upon a ball call and the first bingo card, wherein the outcome for the electronic game is associated with a first output amount;
determine an outcome for the side electronic game based upon the ball call and the second bingo card, wherein the outcome for the side electronic game is associated with a second output amount different from the first output amount;
translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein a reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination;
translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount;
The closest prior art was found to be:
Casey (US 20210012616) discloses a first game played on a first EGM 104A may specify a minimum bet of five cents and a maximum bet of one dollar, while a second EGM 104B may specify a minimum bet of one dollar and a maximum bet of five dollars, scalability across a variety of games implemented or played on differing EGMs 104A-104X. Specifically, process 800 may, like process 400, also be implemented, at least partially, on a backend electronic gaming system, such as progressive system server 112, with a variety of networked EGMs 104A-104X to accommodate a variety of games having differing minimum, maximum, and intermediate wager amounts (or bets) available and accomadating a variety of Class II games played on many different EGMs 104A-104X, even where each game may specify a different range of available wager amounts.[…] association with multiple Class II games, which may be the same game type or different game types (with different winning outcomes, awards, and/or probabilities) and/or a single Class II game participated in by multiple players, irrespective of their differing minimum and maximum bet values, to achieve a desired return to player (RTP) in each of, or “across,” the multiple games and/or single game having multiple players, while using, in various circumstances, one or more shared ball call(s). However the reference does not disclose translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein a reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination; translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount; combine the translated first input amount and the translated second input amount to a translated total input amount, as required by the claimed invention.
Watkins (US 20120295688) discloses converting the centrally-determined game outcome to a corresponding value outcome of the reel-based game as shown in FIG. 2A and operates the reel-based game as described above and with respect to the figures. In one or more embodiments, when a player enters a wager on both base game 103, and any side game that may be included, and enters `PLAY`, a game play request may be transferred to central determination server 405 which may provide a single game outcome to the respective gaming machine 200 and game processor 301 may initiate a game presentation corresponding to the game outcome provided by server 405. However the reference does not disclose translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein a reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination; translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount; combine the translated first input amount and the translated second input amount to a translated total input amount, as required by the claimed invention.
Schoonmaker (US20040133485) discloses ([0072]) Denominations can be added/deleted/modified by using a screen such as that shown in FIG. 8. Once configured, the different denominations are shown on the denomination screen as shown in FIG. 9. Denominations can also be grouped, by using a screen such as that shown in FIG. 10. Once grouped, the denomination groupings appear in the main screen, as illustrated in FIG. 11. An example denomination grouping is also illustrated in FIG. 2. However the reference does not disclose translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein a reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination; translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount; combine the translated first input amount and the translated second input amount to a translated total input amount, as required by the claimed invention.
“The Online Bingo Boom in the UK: A Qualitative Examination of Its Appeal – PMC” discloses an analysis of the motivation for increase in play for online bingo websites include the content on the websites. The content included the forms of payment options, prize money payouts, and the ease of use of the websites which draw first time bingo players. However, the reference does not disclose the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claims 9 and 17) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
determine an outcome for the electronic game based upon a ball call and the first bingo card, wherein the outcome for the electronic game is associated with a first output amount;
determine an outcome for the side electronic game based upon the ball call and the second bingo card, wherein the outcome for the side electronic game is associated with a second output amount different from the first output amount;
translate the first input amount from a first format to a reporting format comprising adjusting the first denomination to a reporting denomination without adjusting the first input amount, wherein a reporting denomination is different from the first denomination and the second denomination;
translate the second input amount from a second format to the reporting format comprising adjusting the second denomination to the reporting denomination without adjusting the second input amount;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Relevant Art Not Cited
US 20090291736 discloses [0083] While the examples above all focus on providing the non-vested portions to the player whose outcome resulted in the original prize package, the invention is not so limited. For example, the non-vested portion may vest to a player on a second gaming device. In one example, the sub-portion may vest to a player's spouse or associated player. In another example, the sub-portion may vest to a player at a random gaming device. Other possibilities are within the scope of the present invention. Note that it is possible that the vesting to a player at a second gaming device vests an intra-game benefit to the player at the second gaming device, where the intra-game benefits are analogous to those already described. Also note that because gaming devices may occur in different denominations, such non-vested portions may have to be translated from a first potential value associated with the first gaming device to a second potential value at the second gaming device. For example, if the first person is playing on a dollar slot machine and has a prize package that pays three coins (three dollars) at the tenth spin to a spouse at a quarter slot machine, the spouse, after ten spins, receives three dollars (or for her, twelve coins). Alternatively, the gaming establishment may decide that a credit on one machine is a credit on a second machine regardless of whether there is a difference in value between the two credits.
Response to Arguments
The remarks filed 6/15/2026 with respect to the prior art rejection are considered moot in light of the amendments which are found to overcome the prior art rejections. Reasons are set forth in the section “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art”.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2A prong 1, the examiner has maintained the claims recite a method of organizing human activity. As the remarks then are directed to the claims being directed to a technical improvement under prong 2, the examiner asserts the improvements alleged from [0050-51] of the specification at most fall into improvements that lie in the abstract idea. The implementation of the amounts for combinations of game play, combination or conversion of denominations and normalization of outputs lies in the abstract idea being implemented by a computer. As to [0162] the alleged improvement again lies in the abstract idea. The manipulation and conversion of data is rooted in the abstract idea and not an improvement to technology itself. The limitations considered alone and in combination are found to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to the remarks directed to example 42, the claims of example 42 were converting the formatting in such a way that the computer could store and then transmit the information. In the instant application, the value of the reported data is converted, but it is not apparent from the claims or discussed portions of the specification that the conversion lies in the technical process of the data structure itself, but merely the values of the data reported (i.e. change in denominations).
The above remarks also apply to added claims 21 and 22.
The examiner notes that none of the limitations were stated to be well-understood, routine, or conventional and the remarks directed to this remark are found the be moot. All of the limitations were considered alone and in combination and the claims were still determined to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights