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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus or method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 8 and 15), recite abstract rules for playing a game of chance which is a certain method of organizing human activity. See conventional reel gaming machine in Savvy Dog Sys. v. Pa. Coin, LLC, 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024)).
6. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the claimed elements of the display, processor, memory, game machine elements are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem. There does not appear to be any extra-solution activity but for the above devices employe as tools. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
There are no elements evaluated under Step 2A but for the devices used as tools. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15, are ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims
In Reference to Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to additional abstract rules of the game. Thus, none of the claims supply a practical application.
Claim Eligibility – No Double Patenting
9. Examiner does not find that the instant claims are anticipated by any of the prior-granted claims based on 17/454, 602 and 16/589,881 for purposes of double patenting.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
12. 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.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights