DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Request for Continued Examination and is a response to said Request.
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 1-16 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 1-16 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 method to play a game on an electronic device, the method comprising:
storing a finite pool of predetermined awards in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
executing instructions on a processing unit being connected to an input device, an output device, a payment mechanism being either a ticket reader configured to read a ticket or a card reader configured to read a card and crediting credits to a player via the payment mechanism to perform a following operations:
displaying a reveal list on the output device, the reveal list comprising at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence in the finite pool for immediately following sequential spins, the reveal list being a smaller subset of the finite pool, the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits;
receiving a wager from the player using the credits which came from the payment mechanism;
spinning reels using computer generated animation;
retrieving a stored award from the finite pool; and
stopping the reels on a combination of symbols which results in an award according to a paytable which matches the stored award which was displayed in the reveal list.
Claim 9 recites:
An apparatus to play a game, the apparatus comprising:
an input device;
an output device;
a payment mechanism being either a ticket reader configured to read a ticket or a card reader to read a card;
a processing unit operationally connected to the input device and the output device, the processing unit configured to execute instructions to:
credit to a player credits via the payment mechanism;
display a reveal list on the output device, the reveal list comprising at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence in a finite pool for immediately following sequential spins, the reveal list being a smaller subset of the finite pool, the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits;
receive a wager from the player in credits which came from the payment mechanism;
spin reels using computer generated animation;
retrieve a stored award from the finite pool; and
stop the reels on a combination of symbols which results in an award according to a paytable which matches the stored award which was displayed in the reveal list.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “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: implementing a slot machine (or other game) with a reveal list feature. When the player wants to view the reveal list (eg: by pressing a button), the next X (eg: 100) outcomes on the slot machine will be revealed. Thus, as the player plays these next 100 games, the outcomes will be exactly as listed in the reveal screen Thus, the player will know what the next 100 games will result in. In an embodiment, the outcomes in the reveal list will be applied to a skill meter which can decrease (or in some embodiments also potentially increase) the outcome depending on mechanical skill of the player.)
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 9 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: processing unit, electronic device, payment mechanism, and card reader.
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);
Krynicky, US 20050266909, discloses that slot machines are also well known in the art and comprise a row or rows of reels (or simulated reels) having symbols positioned about the face of each reel (paragraph 5);
Blazevic, US 20150348371 discloses that there are numerous programs, systems, tables, look-up tables, and strategies in memory that are known and available within the field of gaming (paragraph 26);
Guinn et al., US 20140094274 discloses that display devices for a gaming machine may comprise a plasma, LED, OLED, LCD, CRT, projection, or transmissive display device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 38);
Slomiany, US 8460092, discloses that it is well known in the art, the expected value (EV) of a bonus game is the sum of each possible result, weighted by the respective probability of that result (Col 11, lines 30-33);
Pierrie et al., US 20010031659 discloses that many of the details of operating conventional gaming devices such as reel-based slot machines, video-based poker games, coin acceptors, card readers (credit, debit, smart, etc.) are well known. It is well known how to place bets, recognize the amount bet, and award the winning player based upon a pay table stored in memory. Therefore, the method and teachings of the present invention can be incorporated into a stand-alone casino game such as commonly seen with stand-alone keno, slot, and poker games (paragraph 31);
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);
Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50);
Wilson, US 20070099695 discloses that slot machines are popular in casinos and other gaming establishments and that a typical slot machine has a number of (physical or animated) reels which spin during play and stop to display a pattern of symbols on one or more payout lines. Certain symbol patterns are "winners" resulting in a payout to the player (paragraph 2);
Nguyen et al., US 20040172508 discloses that it is well known, a computer stores data in memory (paragraph 1);
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);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28)
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Falciglia, SR., US 20100203948 discloses that, as is well known, the combinations of reel positions and their odds of hitting are associated with the controller, and the controller is arranged to stop the reels in a position displaying a combination of indicia as determined by the controller based on the combinations and odds (paragraph 142);
Peltz et al., US 20110009197, discloses that players making wagers to initiate game play of a wagering game is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 15);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that credit balances are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 64).
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);
Walker et al., US 20080039190 discloses that graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art (paragraph 101);
Gilmore et al., US 20090124371 discloses that lookup tables are known in the art and may be constructed to provide a determined statistical frequency of any particular outcome in the table (paragraph 132);
Loewenstein et al., US 20050236774, discloses that video gambling games such as poker, slot machines and blackjack are all well known, as are techniques to award prizes based on payoff tables (paragraph 3).
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);
Wright et al., US 20080026831, discloses that when it comes to gaming devices, return-to-player percentages (RTP) are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as it allows operators and venues to control gaming devices so that it meets jurisdiction requirements to allow wagering games to be implemented (paragraph 7);
Mitelman, US 20090270163, discloses that a minimum return-to-player percentage (RTP) is usually predetermined by legislation and, to avoid the problem that unskilled players may not reach that RTP, known gaming systems are designed so that the overall outcome of the game is largely independent of the skill of the player (paragraph 4);
Kelly et al., US 5584763, discloses that software look-up tables are well known to those skilled in the art (Col 7, lines 62-63);
Scibetta, US 20100227668 discloses that when it comes to game play being implemented, game symbol are selected randomly from an associated look-up table stored in the microprocessor-based circuit's ROM and that each symbol is randomly selected from the look-up table (paragraph 137);
Nguyen et al., US 20040053675 discloses that a gaming machine may include a card reader for reading credit cards and/or player tracking cards, a keypad or other input device may also be provided which permits a player to enter information, such as player identification information such as a password or PIN because such player tracking devices, including various input devices which may be employed are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 26);
Rowe et al., US 20030013531, discloses that when it comes wagering games, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that such wagering games have wager accepting devices such as coin acceptors, bill validators, credit card readers, and other devices configured to read or accept items of value and provide a credit there for (paragraph 35);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that output devices may comprise a plurality of display devices, such as an LED display for displaying a player’s credit balance (paragraph 64);
Reeves, US 9552693, discloses that it is well-known in the art, that a gaming machine can display a credit meter and the funds in the account of the player are movable to and from the balance of the credit meter during a play session (Col 6, line 59 to Col 7, line 4);
Nelson, US 20170092059, discloses that credit balances being established from receiving cash, ticket vouchers or promotional ticket is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as it being well-known that gaming machines utilize ticket vouchers when a player wishes to leave the gaming machine and has credits remaining on the gaming machine (paragraph 6).
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 2-8, 10-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
“Assuming arguendo that the independent claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, the claims integrate that concept into a practical application and are therefore patent-eligible.
The independent claims recite a specific, structured improvement to the graphical user interface of an electronic gaming device. In particular, claim 1 requires (i) storing a finite pool of predetermined awards in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; (ii) displaying a reveal list that is a smaller subset of the finite pool and comprises at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence for immediately following sequential spins; (iii) displaying each upcoming award as a respective number of credits; and (iv) retrieving a stored award from the finite pool and stopping the reels on a combination of symbols that matches the stored award displayed in the reveal list. This ordered combination is directly analogous to the improved-interface claims held patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the Federal Circuit held that claims to "a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices" were not abstract because they recited "a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface." Id. at 1363.
The present claims likewise recite a specific structured interface a reveal list that is at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence in the finite pool for immediately following sequential spins, the reveal list being a smaller subset of the finite pool, the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits. This is a particular manner of presenting information that differs from conventional gaming interfaces.
The Examiner's response to Applicant's prior arguments suggests that "a display of a progressive jackpot could be interpreted as a reveal list." Applicant respectfully disagrees. A progressive jackpot display shows a single speculative top-prize value, the attainment of which is probabilistic and uncertain. The claimed reveal list, in contrast displays at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence in the finite pool for immediately following sequential spins, the reveal list being a smaller subset of the finite pool, the at least three upcoming stored awards displayed in the reveal list are each displayed as a respective number of credits. No progressive jackpot display has these structural features, and the analogy therefore does not address the claimed invention as a whole.
Further, the ordered combination of elements of the independent claims is not well understood, routine and conventional. Under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a conclusion that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional must be supported by factual evidence. The Office Action provides no such evidentiary support and instead rests on generalized assertions. The Step 2B analysis is deficient for at least this additional reason.
For the foregoing reasons, the independent claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and, in the alternative, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 depend from the independent claims and are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons.
Therefore, withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner disagrees and does not believe there appears to be a specific, structured improvements to the graphical user interface of the electronic gaming device. In this case, the Examiner had provided references that indicate how elements being used for implementing the claimed invention are all well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, it appears as if “memory” within a general purpose computer could be used for “i) storing a finite pool of predetermined awards in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, in which a “display” from a general purpose computer could be used for “(ii) displaying a reveal list that is a smaller subset of the finite pool and comprises at least three upcoming stored awards in sequence for immediately following sequential spins; (iii) displaying each upcoming award as a respective number of credits”, in which a processor from a general-purpose computer could be used for “(iv) retrieving a stored award from the finite pool and stopping the reels on a combination of symbols that matches the stored award displayed in the reveal list.”
Furthermore, regarding Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, the court had noted that the claimed invention recited limitations that "disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer" and, thus, in contrast to prior art inventions, which required a user to navigate through many different layers or views to access desired data or functionality which “seems slow, complex and difficult to learn”, would result in an improvement in the efficiency of using the electronic device by permitting a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data to be accessed directly from a main menu, such benefits such as an improvement in the speed of a user's navigation through views and windows, a reduction in the number of steps to reach desired data or functionality, and the ability of a user to identify data or functionality of an application without actually opening the application. In this case, the court held that the claims were directed towards an improvement in the functioning of a computer, particularly those with small screen and not directed towards an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees and believes that providing a reveal list does not mean an improvement upon technology or the functioning of a computer in this case, not unless the reduction results in such an improvement indicated in Core Wireless Licensing. In other words, whereas the courts believe an improvement in the speed of a user's navigation through views and windows, a reduction in the number of steps to reach desired data or functionality, and the ability of a user to identify data or functionality of an application without actually opening the application is an improvement upon the functioning of a machine, the Examiner believes that such an improvement does not apply to the claimed invention as the claimed invention because Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics is directed towards a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to a user whereas the claimed invention appears to present a reveal list to a player playing a gaming machine.
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