DETAILED ACTION
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “Fundamental economic principles, or practices” in this case rules for a wagering game. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “receive a first input amount for a play of an electronic game…; receive a second input amount for a play of an electronic game…, wherein the first input amount is different from the second input amount; select a first bingo card for the play of the electronic game; select a second bingo card for the play of the side electronic game; from a plurality of bongo cards associated with the side electronic game, wherein a first subset of the plurality of bingo cards are predesignated as being eligible for causing a progressive output to be provided, wherein a second subset of the plurality of bingo cards are predesignated as being not eligible for causing the progressive output to be provided, and wherein, when selected, the first subset of cards are displayed in a first format and the second subset of cards are displayed in a second format, thereby communicating when the progressive output is eligible to be provided; cause display of the second bingo card in one of the first format or the second format based upon whether the second bingo card is included in the first subset or the second subset; determine an outcome for the electronic game based upon a ball call and the first bingo card; determine an outcome for the side electronic game based upon the ball call and the second bingo card;” These limitations recite rules for play a game of bingo. With additional rules for designating and displaying certain bingo cards eligible for a progressive award. Review of applicant’s specification suggests that the input amounts and game outcomes for the bingo game recite a wagering game (See, for example, Par. 39 and 169 of applicant’s specification).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as a processor, memory, and a display amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer See MPEP 2106.05(f). At best, recitation of display of electronic games in a “first display area” and “second display area” represent insignificant extra solution display activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, recitation of “Electronic game” throughout is simply generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Finally, with regard to the limitations of display of bingo cards in a “first format” and “second format,” these limitations are broad enough that this encompasses, for example, differently colored bingo cards, in a standard physical game of bingo or simply writing some indicator on a bingo card like a check mark to indicate it is eligible and as such do not even rise to the level of an additional element in the examiner’s opinion. As such these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, 14, and 18-20 recite additional abstract details of the rules for the wagering game as well generic, high-level claims of display of “game selectors” which is little more than recitation of selection via the user interface. This amounts to little more than instructions to implement the abstract idea via a computer or insignificant extra solution display activity. Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 recite particular visual details of highlights in the user interface and represent insignificant extra solution display activity. Therefore, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as a processor, memory, and a display represent well-understood, routine and conventional computer activity. Further to the degree that first and second display area are considered extra-solution activity Rinaldis, US 2015/0072750, (Fig. 1 and Par. 9-10) teaches where it is typical in prior art gaming systems to include a gaming display which includes a plurality of display areas for multiple sub games. See also Mendes Francisco, US 2022/0020241, (Fig. 3), Casey et al., US 2020/0394873 (Fig. 5), and Sorreta et al., (Fig. 3A) for other teachings of a bingo game display with multiple display areas for first and second games. As such even when considering the claims as a whole they fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 10-12, 14, and 18-20 recite additional abstract details of the rules for the wagering game as well generic, high-level claims of display of “game selectors” Strom, US 2013/0306817 (Par. 199) teaches where it is conventional for a gaming machine to include a touch screen for providing player activated touch buttons to make selections in game. Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 recite particular visual details of highlights in the user interface, however, Raskin, US, 8,510, 668, (Col. 48 lines 21-34) teach where utilizing highlights, including make a highlight to indicate a user selection and adjusting other selections are well known in the art. Further, Vahtola, US 2014/0368442 (Par. 93), Vasudevan et al., US 2013/0111356 (Par. 41), and Dunnigan, US 2009/0251460 (Par. 100), recite various examples of an illuminated border being used to highlight an interface object. As such, even when considered as a whole these limitations fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed towards rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20. They are not persuasive. Applicant points to Par. 50-53 for a listing a potential technical improvements provided by the claims. However, in the examiners opinion these improvements appear to be little more than supposed advantages arising from abstract features of the games themselves rather than an “improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field”, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, no additional elements are provided for the implementation of supposed improvements besides, at best, display of two games in two areas of a display window, which is insignificant extra-solution display activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity as described above. Par. 53 suggests “various interface improvements” such as “different animations” but these animations are not claimed, let alone claimed specifically enough to arise to level of a technical improvement. Rather applicant simply quotes to the entirety of the claims when arguing the supposed implementation of the technical improvement. As such, in the examiner’s opinion, there are no limitations sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that add significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
However, examiner finds applicant’s arguments with regard to newly added Claims 21-22, with reference to Par. 56 of applicant’s specification, persuasive. As such, Claims 21-22 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Casey et al., US 2021/0012616 teaches where Bingo Cards in a gaming system can be changed from being displayed in a first format to being displayed in a second format to indicate they are eligible for a progressive award (Fig. 6-7 and Par. 75-76).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights