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 .
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, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1 and 19-20 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim employing fundamental economic practices or principles, which have been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) as a method of organizing human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identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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 method] comprising:
[…] perform[ing] operations comprising:
determining a […] type of [algorithm] to be performed by a plurality of [human beings mentally];
requesting […] input data from the plurality of [human beings] that comprises prediction data corresponding to operations […] that corresponds to the [algorithm] type; and
performing monitoring and scheduling operations corresponding to [executing the algorithm by] the plurality of [human beings mentally] and based on the [algorithm] type[;]
[a] method comprising:
determining a […] type of [algorithm] to be performed by a plurality of [human beings mentally];
requesting […] input data […] that comprises prediction data corresponding to operations […] that corresponds to the [algorithm] type; and
performing monitoring and scheduling operations corresponding to [executing the algorithm] and based on the [algorithm] type; and
[and]:
receiv[ing] data corresponding to a quantity of users in a casino venue;
compar[ing] the quantity of users in the casino venue to a user crowd threshold; and,
in response to the quantity of users being greater than the user crowd threshold, disable [executing the algorithm] until the quantity of users is less than the user crowd threshold[; and]
[a method] comprising:
[…] determining a […] type of [algorithm] to be performed by a plurality of [human beings mentally]
providing […] input data that comprises historical data corresponding to operations of the plurality of [human beings] that correspond to the [algorithm] type;
performing monitoring and scheduling operations corresponding to [executing the algorithm by] the plurality of [human beings mentally] and based on a [consensus mechanism] that depends on a quantity of […] currency held by the plurality of [human beings] to determine mining performance of the plurality of [human beings]; and
scheduling ones of the plurality of [human beings] based on which [transactions] have been previously used for [executing the algorithm].
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, and/or the rules of a game.
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 system and/or EGM comprising processing circuitry memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising the Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code; employing a blockchain; mining for cryptocurrency; a plurality of EGM’s; employing cryptocurrency; and/or an occupancy sensor; 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 system and/or EGM comprising processing circuitry memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising the Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code; employing a blockchain; mining for cryptocurrency; a plurality of EGM’s; employing cryptocurrency; and/or an occupancy sensor; 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., F1 and 2A in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., F3 and text regarding same regarding employing a blockchain; e.g., p19 regarding mining for and employing cryptocurrency; and, e.g., p125 regarding an occupancy sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20240346883 A1 by Buck (“Buck”).
In regard to Claim 1, Buck teaches a system comprising:
processing circuitry; and
memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
(see, e.g., p37);
determining a blockchain type of mining operations to be performed by a plurality of EGMs;
(see, e.g., p20);
requesting AI input data from the plurality of EGMs that comprises prediction data corresponding to operations of the plurality of EGMs and that corresponds to the blockchain type; and
(see, e.g., p20 and 25-26);
performing monitoring and scheduling operations corresponding to mining cryptocurrency using the plurality of EGMs and based on the blockchain type
(see, e.g., p27-28).
In regard to Claim 2, Buck teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p31.
In regard to Claims 3 and 5, Buck teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p38.
In regard to Claim 11, Buck teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p16 and 26.
In regard to Claim 14, Buck teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p40-41.
In regard to Claim 18, Buck teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p36-37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice.
In regard to Claim 4, while the otherwise cited art may not teach the claimed sensor, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such a proximity sensor was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the EGM to automatically become available for gaming based on a human being nearby. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to optimize mining income by having the mining activities cease only when a human being walked in proximity to the EGM.
Claims 6 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice
In regard to Claims 6 and 15, while the otherwise cited art may not teach the claimed limitations, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that employing a POS blockchain was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the EGM reduce the need for computing power by employing a consensus mechanism. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to reduce the need for computing power.
In regard to Claim 15, also see Buck at, e.g., p40-41.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice
In regard to Claim 12, while the otherwise cited art may not teach the claimed limitations, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that employing such a private cryptocurrency was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for better branding of the cryptocurrency host. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for better branding of the casino cryptocurrency host.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice
In regard to Claim 13, while the otherwise cited art may not teach the claimed limitations, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that ceasing mining for cryptocurrency when it is no longer profitable was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for saving on energy costs. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for saving on energy costs.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice
In regard to Claim 16, while the otherwise cited art may not teach the claimed limitations, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that allowing a user to select how much background computer time was to be devoted to cryptocurrency mining was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the user to select how much background computer time to devote to mining. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for saving on energy costs.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of official notice
In regard to Claim 17, while Buck teaches a cryptocurrency jackpot it may not teach the remaining claimed limitations, however,
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that a jackpot display was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for the user to see the size of the jackpot. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to incentivize further play by the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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