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 8/3/25 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 1-20 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 1-20 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, 10, and 15, 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim fundamental economic practices or principles, which has been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) as a method of organizing human activity;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identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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] gaming [method] comprising:
[…]
cause a display […] of symbol displays;
cause a display, by the display device, of an area of effect indicator in association with one of the symbol displays, wherein the area of effect indicator comprises:
a symbol accumulation indicator area that indicates a quantity of symbols that can be accumulated in that area of effect indicator during an area of effect symbol accumulation sequence that comprises activations of the symbol displays, and
an accumulated symbol display area in which accumulated symbols are displayed during the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence;
responsive to [a first event] disabling […] the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence;
following [a second event] enabling the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence;
thereafter, cause a display […] of the activations of the symbol displays during the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence;
cause a display […] of symbols on the one of the symbol displays being accumulated in the accumulated symbol display area during the activations of the symbol displays during the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence; and
cause a display […] of indications of the accumulated symbols in the symbol accumulation indicator area that are accumulated in the accumulated symbol display area during the activations of the symbol displays during the area of effect symbol accumulation sequence.
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, mathematical concepts, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
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 gaming system comprising: a processor; a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, a display device, and/or enabling/disabling a 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., a gaming system comprising: a processor; a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, a display device, and/or enabling/disabling a 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., F4A-4C in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; and, e.g., p225 regarding enabling/disabling a gaming device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 10 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Simply requiring “physical hardware components” in addition to an abstract idea does not necessarily render “significantly more”. See, e.g., the computing and sensing devices required by the claims in Electric Power Group, the copy machine required in Content Extraction, the digital camera required in Yu v. Apple, the garage door opener required in Chamberlain, the fish hooks required in In re Rudy. Also see the operation of a 3D printer to print an object required in Ficep v. Peddinghaus (non-precedential).
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
108
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
454
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the opening of the access door suspends all game play, has nothing specifically to do with and is thereby completely peripheral to Applicant’s claimed bonus game.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 in its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
344
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
246
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Aside from a PTAB opinion concerning the instant Application, opinions of the PTAB are not binding legal authority on examiners. What is more the PTAB opinions cited here are not either precedential or informative in regard to the PTAB itself. Also, the proposition that simply by claiming a physical device that patent eligible subject matter is claimed under the Mayo test is contrary to all of the decisions of the CAFC cited supra in that regard. What is more, the CAFC held in Savvy Dog Systems (non-precedential) that claims directed to an abstract idea in the form of a gambling game that was embodied on an “electronic gaming system” were not patent eligible. In other words, Applicant has not invented an improved method and/or device for monitoring the access door of an electronic gaming machine. And simply claiming this as a well-understood, routine, and conventional element in addition to Applicant’s abstract idea does not add “significantly more”. For these reasons, the rejections made under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
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