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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the occurrence or one or more specified conditions" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a plurality of electronic gaming machines (EGMs);
a secure communications network; and
a controller communicatively linked to the plurality of EGMs, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, via the secure communications network, a communication from a first EGM in the plurality of EGMs indicating that the first EGM has entered a shared bonus mode that is open to receiving further players to enhance a payout amount of the shared bonus mode;
generate a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players for a limited amount of time;
transmit the generated control signal from the controller to at least the second EGM, such that the second EGM indicates to other players that the shared bonus mode is currently available;
determine that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired; and
incorporate the second EGM into the shared bonus mode, such that players at both the first EGM and the second EGM are eligible to win the payout amount.
Claim 19 recites:A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via a secure communications network, a communication from a first electronic gaming machine (EGM) in a plurality of EGMs indicating that the first EGM has entered a shared bonus mode that is open to receiving further players to enhance a payout amount of the shared bonus mode;
generating, at a controller communicatively linked to the plurality of EGMs, a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players for a limited amount of time;
transmitting the generated control signal from the controller to at least the second EGM, such that the second EGM indicates to other players that the shared bonus mode is currently available;
determining that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired; and
incorporating the second EGM into the shared bonus mode, such that players at both the first EGM and the second EGM are eligible to win the payout amount.
Claim 20 recites:A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a computing device, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, via a secure communications network, a communication from a first electronic gaming machine (EGM) in a plurality of EGMs indicating that the first EGM has entered a shared bonus mode that is open to receiving further players to enhance a payout amount of the shared bonus mode;
generate, at a controller communicatively linked to the plurality of EGMs, a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players for a limited amount of time;
transmit the generated control signal from the controller to at least the second EGM, such that the second EGM indicates to other players that the shared bonus mode is currently available;
determine that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired; and
incorporate the second EGM into the shared bonus mode, such that players at both the first EGM and the second EGM are eligible to win the payout amount.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: receiving a communication from a first electronic gaming machine (EGM) in a plurality of EGMs indicating that the first EGM has entered a shared bonus mode that is open to receiving further players to enhance a payout amount of the shared bonus mode; generating a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players for a limited amount of time; transmitting the generated control signal from the controller to at least the second EGM, such that the second EGM indicates to other players that the shared bonus mode is currently available; determining that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired; and incorporating the second EGM into the shared bonus mode, such that players at both the first EGM and the second EGM are eligible to win the payout amount.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1 and 19-20 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: controller and communications network.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Bregenzer, US 20040224745 discloses that it is well understood that software and firmware that controls for a casino-based game is stored on various memory devices, such as a ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory, hard drive, disk drive, or other alterable or inalterable memory or memories, and that the memory devices are linked to the processor or processors (paragraph 28);
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47);
DeLeon, US 20060116207, discloses that network communication between a central network computer system and the various gaming machines are conventional and well known in the field of gaming devices (paragraph 18);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Vancura, US 20120064961, discloses that, in general, the operating hardware and software necessary to implement a casino-based game is well known and is based on one or more communicatively interconnected controllers, processors, or microprocessors found within such a casino game (paragraph 26);
Saffari, US 20030050111, discloses a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising an input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to play a game to a determined outcome (paragraph 2);
Hafezi, US 20130344945 discloses that network interfaces for communication amount gaming machines are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 48);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding independent claim 1 (and similarly Claims 19-20), the closest prior art Acres, US 20110159940 is interpreted as disclosing:
A system comprising: a plurality of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) (Fig 3, elem 70; para 48);
a secure communications network (Fig 3, elem 50; para 48); and
a controller communicatively linked to the plurality of EGMs (Fig 3, elem 60; para 48), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, via the secure communications network, a communication from a first EGM in the plurality of EGMs indicating that the first EGM has entered a shared bonus mode that is open to receiving further players to enhance a payout amount of the shared bonus mode (para 60, 63, 66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126. When a gaming machine is configured in a linked manner, this means they that the gaming machine is in a shared bonus mode and open to receiving further players for an enhanced payout.); generate a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players (Fig 5A; para 60, 63-66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126); transmit the generated control signal from the controller to at least the second EGM, such that the second EGM indicates to other players that the shared bonus mode is currently available (para 60, 63, 66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126); determine that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired (para 60, 63, 66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126); and incorporate the second EGM into the shared bonus mode, such that players at both the first EGM and the second EGM are eligible to win the payout amount (para 60, 63, 66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126).
While Acres discloses generating a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players (Fig 5A; para 60, 63-66, 76, 98, 103, 107-108, 111, 121-126), Acres is interpreted as failing to disclose generating a control signal for at least a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs to present an indication to other potential players that the shared bonus mode on the first EGM is open to receiving additional players for a limited amount of time as well as determining that the second EGM has received a buy-in from a player before the limited amount of time has expired.
In this case, Acres is interpreted as teaching players being able to join in on a shared bonus wherein there is no limited amount of time in which players can join.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights