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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/980,085 originally filed on December 13, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 12 are independent.
A preliminary amendment was filed on February 13, 2025 amending the specification to add cross-reference information related to the application. No claims were amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 13, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), claim 10 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), and claim 12 is directed to “a video lottery terminal” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “modifying an amount of a contribution pool,” reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“responsive to an amount of a credit… being less than a designated amount and an occurrence of a credit… contribution event:
…reduce the amount of the credit…
modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit… an amount of a contribution pool maintained independent[ly]… wherein a probability of winning the amount of the contribution pool associated with the occurrence of the credit… contribution event is independent of the reduced amount of the credit...”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a system,” “a processor,” “a memory device,” “a credit meter,” and “a video lottery terminal” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “modifying an amount of a contribution pool,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a system,” “a processor,” “a memory device,” “a credit meter,” and “a video lottery terminal” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
The claimed “a system” includes “a processor,” “a memory device,” “a credit meter,” and “a video lottery terminal.” The “a processor” and “a memory device” are conventional components of generic computing devices.
The “credit meter” may be operated by a standard mobile device, as disclosed in paragraph [0020], “a variety of different types of systems, such as, but not limited to, those described below. As such, the present disclosure contemplates a variety of different systems each having one or more of a plurality of different features, attributes, or characteristics. A “system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more servers; (b) one or more video lottery terminals; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices, such as a mobile device operating as a remote video lottery terminal.”
The “video lottery terminal” can be a mobile device operating as a remote video lottery terminal, as disclosed in paragraph [0071], “a variety of different types of systems, such as, but not limited to, those described below. As such, the present disclosure contemplates a variety of different systems each having one or more of a plurality of different features, attributes, or characteristics. A “system” as used herein refers to various configurations of: (a) one or more servers; (b) one or more video lottery terminals; and/or (c) one or more personal gaming devices, such as a mobile device operating as a remote video lottery terminal.”
Therefore, these elements can reasonably be interpreted as being generic computing devices, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 10, and 12.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Olsen (US 2012/0202579).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Olsen discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Olsen [0041], “the gaming machine 100 may include one or more microprocessors or controllers for controlling the gaming machine”); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Olsen [0041], “The controller may be arranged to send signals for determining winning combinations and to cause the display 104 to display winning amount information. In addition, the controller is preferably arranged to determine if a round of game play has resulted in a win, and if so, the amount to be paid to the player for that win.”; also Olsen [0057], “The controller may store the definitions on a storage device or storage medium, such as a hard drive, memory device, magnetic or optical disk, flash memory”), cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a video lottery terminal being less than a designated amount and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (Olsen [0039], “The gaming machine 100 may be configured to present various styles or configurations of games having the inventive features described herein. These may include games… in Class II, including central determinant games such a video lottery”; also Olsen [0130], “a modification is made such that players making a wager less than the minimum threshold…”):
communicate data that causes the video lottery terminal to reduce the amount of the credit meter (Olsen [0130], “players making a wager below the minimum still participate in a bonus round once their accrued value of wagering meets the minimum threshold,” participating in a bonus round would use the wager amount), and
modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, an amount of a contribution pool maintained independent of the video lottery terminal, wherein a probability of winning the amount of the contribution pool associated with the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is independent of the reduced amount of the credit meter (Olsen [0130], “In an alternative embodiment, a modification is made such that players making a wager less than the minimum threshold will instead fund a "bonus credit play" funding pool. Once the bonus credit play funding pool reaches or exceeds a preset value, usually the minimum credit wager, a bonus game is activated for that round of underlying play only. In this method, players making a wager below the minimum still participate in a bonus round once their accrued value of wagering meets the minimum threshold.”).
Regarding claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Olsen discloses wherein the designated amount comprises a minimum wager amount to play a game at the video lottery terminal (Olsen [0130], “players making a wager less than the minimum threshold will instead fund a "bonus credit play" funding pool. Once the bonus credit play funding pool reaches or exceeds a preset value, usually the minimum credit wager, a bonus game is activated for that round of underlying play only”).
Regarding claim 6, and substantially similar limitations in claim 17, Olsen discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the amount of the credit meter of the video lottery terminal being less than the designated amount and the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event, cause the processor to assign a user of the video lottery terminal a quantity of chances to win the modified amount of the contribution pool, the quantity of assigned chances being independent of the reduced amount of the credit meter (Olsen [0130], “In an alternative embodiment, a modification is made such that players making a wager less than the minimum threshold will instead fund a "bonus credit play" funding pool. Once the bonus credit play funding pool reaches or exceeds a preset value, usually the minimum credit wager, a bonus game is activated for that round of underlying play only. In this method, players making a wager below the minimum still participate in a bonus round once their accrued value of wagering meets the minimum threshold.”).
Regarding claim 8, and substantially similar limitations in claim 19, Olsen discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a supplemental award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the modified amount of the contribution pool to be transferred to the credit meter of the video lottery terminal (Olsen [0063], “If an award payout, such as in the case of a progressive or other bonus, pays out the entire contents of a winning symbol combination's funding pool, then the payout amount for such award over time will equal to the funds collected by the award's funding pool”; also Olsen [0146], “the bonus system maintains a "bonus game credit" funding pool or meter, one for each game linked, which tracks partial wagers until a total amount of wagering equals or exceeds a minimum amount, at which time that wager meeting the minimum buy-in triggers a single bonus game play occurrence”).
Regarding claim 9, Olsen discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a supplemental award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the modified amount of the contribution pool to be transferred to an account associated with the user of the video lottery terminal (Olsen [0063], “If an award payout, such as in the case of a progressive or other bonus, pays out the entire contents of a winning symbol combination's funding pool, then the payout amount for such award over time will equal to the funds collected by the award's funding pool”).
Regarding claim 20, Olsen discloses wherein a determination of any win of the modified amount of the contribution pool occurs independent of the processor (Olsen [0043], “the gaming machine 100 may be configured as a server based device and obtain game code or game outcome information from a remote server.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen in view of Higgins et al. (hereinafter “Higgins,” US 2022/0383700).
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the video lottery terminal.
However, Higgins discloses wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the video lottery terminal (Higgins [0058], “the ending of the gaming session (which may cause the transfer of any funds in the personalized carryover pool to an alternative pool) occurs as a result of any suitable event, including, but not limited to, one or more of the player pressing a cashout button…”).
Higgins is analogous to Olsen, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen, to include wherein the credit meter contribution event occurs in association with an input to cashout the amount of the credit meter of the video lottery terminal, as taught by Higgins, since it would have applied a known technique for triggering a contribution event to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 14, Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein an identity of a user of the video lottery terminal at least partially determines the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event.
However, Higgins discloses wherein an identity of a user of the video lottery terminal at least partially determines the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event (Higgins [0118], “The at least one user identification module 1077 is configured to determine the identity of the current user or current owner of the EGM. For example, in one embodiment, the current user is required to perform a login process at the EGM in order to access one or more features. Alternatively, the EGM is configured to automatically determine the identity of the current user based on one or more external signals, such as an RFID tag or badge worn by the current user and that provides a wireless signal to the EGM that is used to determine the identity of the current user.”).
Higgins is analogous to Olsen, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen, to include wherein an identity of a user of the video lottery terminal at least partially determines the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event, as taught by Higgins, in order to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the system (Higgins [0118]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 16, Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by a display device independent of the video lottery terminal, of the modified amount of the contribution pool.
However, Higgins discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by a display device independent of the video lottery terminal, of the modified amount of the contribution pool (Higgins [0057], “the system displays to the player an indication of the amount maintained in the personalized carryover pool, such as by displaying a value due to the player on their next win of at least the minimum wager amount”).
Higgins is analogous to Olsen, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen, to include wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by a display device independent of the video lottery terminal, of the modified amount of the contribution pool, as taught by Higgins, because it would combine prior art elements of displaying award values according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen in view of Englman et al. (hereinafter “Englman,” US 8,147,320).
Regarding claim 7, and substantially similar limitations in claim 18, Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance per occurrence of the credit meter contribution event.
However, Englman discloses wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance per occurrence of the credit meter contribution event (Englman col. 12 lines 3-15, “the probability of winning the progressive jackpot is independent of both the player's wager and the number of paylines played, i.e., all players have the same probability of winning the progressive jackpot regardless of the wager amount or lines played”).
Englman is analogous to Olsen, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen, to include wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance per occurrence of the credit meter contribution event, as taught by Englman, since it applies a known technique of wagering to improve similar wagering game systems. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen in view of Higgins, and in further view of Englman.
Regarding claim 10, Olsen discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Olsen [0041], “the gaming machine 100 may include one or more microprocessors or controllers for controlling the gaming machine”); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Olsen [0041], “The controller may be arranged to send signals for determining winning combinations and to cause the display 104 to display winning amount information. In addition, the controller is preferably arranged to determine if a round of game play has resulted in a win, and if so, the amount to be paid to the player for that win.”; also Olsen [0057], “The controller may store the definitions on a storage device or storage medium, such as a hard drive, memory device, magnetic or optical disk, flash memory”), cause the processor to:
…
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a video lottery terminal being less than a designated amount … being received at the video lottery terminal (Olsen [0039], “The gaming machine 100 may be configured to present various styles or configurations of games having the inventive features described herein. These may include games… in Class II, including central determinant games such a video lottery”; also Olsen [0130], “a modification is made such that players making a wager less than the minimum threshold…”).
Olsen does not explicitly teach cause a display, by a display device, of a first value of a contribution pool … responsive to a cashout input being received at the video lottery terminal … after the contribution of the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool, cause a display, by the display device, of a second, greater value of the contribution pool … contribute the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received.
However, Higgins discloses cause a display, by a display device, of a first value of a contribution pool … responsive to a cashout input being received at the video lottery terminal … after the contribution of the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool, cause a display, by the display device, of a second, greater value of the contribution pool … contribute the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received (Higgins [0057-0058], “the system displays to the player an indication of the amount maintained in the personalized carryover pool, such as by displaying a value due to the player on their next win of at least the minimum wager amount… the ending of the gaming session (which may cause the transfer of any funds in the personalized carryover pool to an alternative pool) occurs as a result of any suitable event, including, but not limited to, one or more of the player pressing a cashout button”).
Higgins is analogous to Olsen, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen, to include cause a display, by a display device, of a first value of a contribution pool … responsive to a cashout input being received at the video lottery terminal … after the contribution of the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool … contribute the amount of the credit meter to the contribution pool without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received, cause a display, by the display device, of a second, greater value of the contribution pool, as taught by Higgins, because it would combine prior art elements of displaying award values according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Olsen in view of Higgins does not teach assign a quantity of chances to win the contribution pool to a user of the video lottery terminal, wherein the quantity of assigned chances is independent of the amount of the credit meter contributed to the contribution pool.
However, Englman discloses assign a quantity of chances to win the contribution pool to a user of the video lottery terminal, wherein the quantity of assigned chances is independent of the amount of the credit meter contributed to the contribution pool (Englman col. 12 lines 3-15, “the probability of winning the progressive jackpot is independent of both the player's wager and the number of paylines played, i.e., all players have the same probability of winning the progressive jackpot regardless of the wager amount or lines played”).
Englman is analogous to Olsen in view of Higgins, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen in view of Higgins, to include assign a quantity of chances to win the contribution pool to a user of the video lottery terminal, wherein the quantity of assigned chances is independent of the amount of the credit meter contributed to the contribution pool, as taught by Englman, since it applies a known technique of wagering to improve similar wagering game systems. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Olsen in view of Higgins does not explicitly teach wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance.
However, Englman discloses wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance (Englman col. 12 lines 3-15, “the probability of winning the progressive jackpot is independent of both the player's wager and the number of paylines played, i.e., all players have the same probability of winning the progressive jackpot regardless of the wager amount or lines played”).
Englman is analogous to Olsen in view of Higgins, as both are drawn to the art of wagering games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Olsen in view of HIggins, to include wherein the quantity of assigned chances comprises one chance, as taught by Englman, since it applies a known technique of wagering to improve similar wagering game systems. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights