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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-18 recite “EGM” without providing details as to what the acronym stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system; claims 17-18 to a method and claims 19-20 are directed to an electronic gaming machine. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart as directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea). Specifically, claims are rejected as directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The independent claims, as currently presented are drawn to a “system” or “machine” or “method” comprising processing circuitry and memory; however, the substance of the claims is collection, analysis, organization, and scheduling of information relating to blockchain mining operations performed in association with a plurality of EGMs.
The claims recites, determining a blockchain type of mining operations to be performed by a plurality of EGMs, requesting AI input data from the EGMs comprising prediction data corresponding to EGM operations and corresponding to the blockchain type, and performing monitoring and scheduling operations corresponding to mining cryptocurrency using the plurality of EGMs based on the blockchain type. These limitations, when read as a whole, are directed to abstract idea of data gathering, data analysis, and result-oriented scheduling of activities. These concepts fall within the abstract-idea grouping recognized by the courts, including methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, as well as information processing performed at a high level of generality.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites an abstract idea because it is directed to determining when mining operations should be carried out, obtaining predictive data, and scheduling those operations based on the obtained data. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, network operation, blockchain architecture, EGM hardware, or cryptocurrency mining technology itself. Rather, it recites desired outcomes - determining, requesting, monitoring, and scheduling; without claiming a particular technological solution for achieving those outcomes
The concept of identifying and transmitting auction information further represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). The only hardware recited is generic “processing circuitry” and “memory,” which are routine, conventional computer components used to implement the abstract idea. Mere declaration of a computer system or processor does not make an otherwise abstract claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management of the game by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, and (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1 to 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of EGMs, blockchain type, AI input data, prediction data, and scheduling operations is functional and result-oriented, but does not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claim does not require any nonconventional programming, specialized blockchain protocol, improved mining algorithm, or particular technical architecture that would amount to significantly more.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buck (12,020,274) refers to game reward system that pays players to play a video game. The system utilizes the unused resources of the player's computing device to perform cryptographic hashes and mine one or more cryptocurrencies. The game reward system generates a jackpot based on the cryptocurrency that has been mined, allocates some amount to the system operator for profit of running the system (e.g., 10%), and divides the remaining amount among the players of enough rank as a reward. Instead of charging people to buy a game, the game maker using the game reward system can make the game free for players to play.
Walsh (20190303960) refers to providing a multiplayer online game on a plurality of user client devices; mining a cryptocurrency on each client device while users of the client devices interact with the multiplayer online game; assigning at least a portion of the mined cryptocurrency to at least one of the users according to the user interactions with the multiplayer online game; and distributing the at least a portion of the mined cryptocurrency according to the assignment.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, 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 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights