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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
There are two IDSs filed, 1/6/25 and 1/17/25. They appear to be identical. Both have still been considered and annotated for the sake of file wrapper clarity.
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 non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of wagering or fundamental economic practice and the mathematical relationship or formula guiding wagering. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims directed to systems and methods. Products and processes are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims recite the abstract ideas of rules of wagering game and the rules of documenting a transaction.
Rules of a wagering game is a fundamental economic principle falling under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea group. A wagering game includes the steps of displaying a game, accepting a wager, providing a random outcome, and determining a winner or loser.
Rules of documenting a transaction also falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea group as a transaction is considered to be a fundamental business practice.
receive data of a transaction (documenting a transaction)
list the transaction data in a digital ledger (documenting a transaction)
determining that the player is participating in a progressive bonus award (start of wagering process)
determine whether to issue a ticket to the player for the transaction performed by the player, (accepting a wager)
add an entry to the digital ledger including ticket information (documenting a transaction)
add an additional value to the progressive bonus award (accepting a wager)
randomly draw a winning ticket identifier of a winning ticket (providing a random outcome)
provide notification of the winning ticket. (determining a winner or loser)
(Step 2A, prong one: YES).
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Other than the rules of wagering game and the rules of documenting a transaction, the claims recite a memory device and a game controller. These limitations are merely parts of a generic computer network.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether it amounts to significantly more than the concepts of rules of wagering game and the rules of documenting a transaction. The claim has additional limitations to the abstract idea such as a memory device and a game controller. These limitations are merely parts of a generic computer network.
Viewing the limitations individually,
As discussed above, the physical components of a generic computer such as a memory device and a game controller does not make the claims less abstract, nor do they meet the “significantly more” criterion.
As discussed above, the individual steps of the abstract idea also do not meet the “significantly more” criterion.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of gaming with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas of rules of wagering game and the rules of documenting a transaction. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if the claims were amended to overcome the 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to art, claims 1, 11 and 16 recite a very specific inter-related set of limitation to produce a progressive bonus award system integrated within a mobile application.
The steps include inter mobile application workings of a wallet, transaction data, player data, a digital ledger and adding ticket information for entry into the progressive.
There are determining steps on participation and ticket issuance.
There is additional value added to the progressive bonus award.
There is a promotional time period and, at the end of the promotional time period, randomly draw a winning ticket identifier of a winning ticket and verify that the winning ticket identifier matches the ticket identifier of the ticket issued to the player
The multiple and detailed steps are recited and inter-related in such a manner that full combination of limitations cannot be shown or taught by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights