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 Status
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, the applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to an improved control of display of symbols on a display device under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 11-12) and ii) that the claims recite an improved control of display of symbols on a display device that are directed to technical display and tracking of symbols based on RNG outputs which integrates the claim into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 12-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the first argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to an improved control of display of symbols on a display device (see Remarks, pg. 11-12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of instructions and steps to display “the outcome amount for the feature game after the new symbols and the at least one prize symbol are displayed” which is analogous to managing a prize symbol game. In particular, the claims are not found to recite an improved control of display of symbols on a display device (based upon various RNG outputs and lookup tables) but rather to a series of steps and/or instructions for determining an outcome of the at claimed symbol game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the claims are found under Step 2A-prong 1 to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a prize symbol game.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to an improved control of display of symbols on a display device that is a technical display and tracking of symbols based on RNG outputs which integrates the claim into a practical application (see Remarks, pg. 12-16). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that under the “improvements” consideration, the present application explains that in paragraph [0051], the Specification discloses “in embodiments described herein, the location and/or movement of prize indicia in a prize indicia display area may be determined at least in part by a value returned from a RNG. In at least some of these embodiments, the value returned from the RNG may be mapped to a particular position. Further, the value returned from the RNG may be mapped to a particular positions based at least in part on a range of potential return values from the RNG stored in at least one memory device” and in [0062] “the movement of the prize indicia shown in the display may be determined by at least in part by a value returned from a RNG” such that “the symbol array and the prize indicia are caused to move relative to each other by moving the prize indicia, for example such that movement of the prize indicia is random” that provides a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and…the claim reflects the asserted improvement”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions to present prize symbols in a prize symbol display area to move between the at least one symbol location and the at least one symbol position of the symbol array to determine a spot prize amount for presenting an amount of the game outcome. The claim recites limitations as well as the cited portions of the Specification disclose a desired result-oriented outcome using RNG outputs to randomly display the game outcome but fails provide the particular details, the interrelationship between the lookup tables and/or the RNG outputs, or provides a technical problem or how to achieve the technical solution directed to an improved “control of display of symbols on a display device” that itself would be construed as a technical improvement to the functioning of the computer. In contrast, the claims are found to recite a series of steps and/or instructions using result-oriented limitations of the prize symbol game to claim an arrangement of the transactional information of the prize symbol game to determine an outcome which amounts to mere instructions which invoke conventional components of a gaming machine to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea.. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection and analysis under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below. Moreover, this positions is supported by Vancura (US 2010/0029381), which discloses that conventional gaming machines utilize RNG outputs to generate random game events (e.g., such as the dealing of cards) which is analogous to selecting random prize symbols and/or random spot prize values as recited in the instant application (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040).
The Examiner notes that the specific implementation of the electronic mapping and linking of the particulars of the interrelationship of the control between the multiple RNG outputs and lookup tables, if properly disclosed and explained for improving the display of a particular machine that is properly disclosed and supported by the Specification could potentially be found to be integration into a practical application. However, the cited portions by the Applicant’s representative and the review by the Examiner has not found support in the Specification to sufficiently describe such a technological improvement. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. For instance, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, the Claims recites limitations which are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. (currently amended) An electronic gaming device comprising:
a display device; and
at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and the display device wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
cause display of a symbol array and a prize symbol display area on the display device, wherein the symbol array includes a plurality of symbol positions;
receive a first output from a random number generator (RNG);
access a first lookup table stored in the at least one memory device, the first lookup table comprising an electronic mapping linking between RNG outputs and different locations within the prize symbol display area as a plurality of prize symbols move within the prize symbol display area;
cause display of the plurality of prize symbols at symbol locations in the prize symbol display area based upon the first output from the RNG and the electronic mapping stored in the at least one memory device, wherein each prize symbol of the plurality of prize symbols is associated with a spot prize, and wherein display of the plurality of prize symbols comprises movement of the plurality of prize symbols relative to display of the symbol array based at least in part upon the first output from the RNG and the first lookup table; -certain method of organizing human activity
receive a second output from the RNG that corresponds to a range of values of a plurality of ranges of values stored in a second lookup table in the at least one memory device;
determine at least one prize symbol of the plurality of prize symbols displayed in the prize symbol display area to cause to move between at least one symbol location of the symbol locations and at least one symbol position of the symbol array based upon the second output from the RNG and the range of values; -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine the at least one symbol location of the at least one prize symbol in the prize symbol display area based at least in part upon the first output from the RNG and the electronic mapping stored in the at least one memory device; -certain method of organizing human activity;
cause display of the at least one prize symbol of the plurality of prize symbols displayed in the prize symbol display area as moving between the at least one symbol location of the symbol locations determined based upon the first output from the RNG and the mapping stored in the at least one memory device and the at least one symbol position of the symbol array based upon the second output from the RNG and the range of values;
based upon movement of the at least one prize symbol from the prize symbol display area to the at least one symbol position of the symbol array and before display of a game outcome corresponding to a feature game that includes new symbols and the at least one prize symbol, store at least one spot prize associated with the at least one prize symbol in a player meter stored in the at least one memory device, wherein the at least one spot prize comprises at least one output amount that is stored in the player meter prior to an outcome amount corresponding to the game outcome being displayed; -certain method of organizing human activity;
receive a third output from the RNG;
access a third lookup table stored in the at least one memory device;
based upon the third output from the RNG and the third lookup table, cause display of the new symbols at each symbol position of the symbol array different from the at least one symbol position including the at least one prize symbol, wherein the at least one prize symbol remains at the at least one symbol position; and -certain method of organizing human activity;
cause the electronic gaming device to display the outcome amount for the feature game after the new symbols and the at least one prize symbol are displayed. -certain method of organizing human activity;
The limitations, as underlined above, recite steps directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions and/or managing a social activity (including rules and/or instructions). For instance, the identified steps are found to recite limitations for managing a prize symbol feature game and/or rules and/or instructions to manage the display of the game outcome of the prize symbol feature game. For at least these reasons, Claim 1 is found to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as “a display device;” “at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and the display device wherein the at least one processor is configured to:” “cause display of a symbol array and a prize symbol display area on the display device, wherein the symbol array includes a plurality of symbol positions” “receive a first output from a random number generator (RNG)”, “access a first lookup table stored in the at least one memory device, the first lookup table comprising an electronic mapping between RNG outputs and locations in the prize symbol display area” “cause display of a plurality of symbols at symbol locations in the prize symbol display area based upon the first output from the RNG and the electronic mapping stored in the at least one memory device,” “based at least in part upon the first output from the RNG and the first lookup table;” “receive a second output from the RNG that corresponds to a range of values of a plurality of ranges of values stored in a second lookup table in the at least one memory device;” “based upon the second output from the RNG and the range of values;” “cause display of the at least one prize symbol of the plurality of prize symbols displayed in the prize symbol display area as moving between the at least one symbol location of the symbol locations determined based upon the first output from the RNG and the mapping stored in the at least one memory device and the at least one symbol position of the symbol array based upon the second output from the RNG and the range of values;” “in a player meter stored in the at least one memory device,” “receive a third output from the RNG; access a third lookup table stored in the at least one memory device; based upon the third output from the RNG and the third lookup table, cause display of” and “cause the electronic gaming device to display” recites a series of steps or instructions to invoke a conventional wagering game environment by invoking an RNG to generate and display an outcome for a symbol prize feature game. These limitations amount to merely arranging the transactional information of the prize symbol feature game that is similar to what the courts have indicated amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
Moreover, as disclosed by Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) a conventional gaming machine invokes an RNG to generate a random event which is a conventionally available component of an electronic gaming machine (see Vancura, 0037-0040). The limitations directed to displaying, using the look up table, and/or utilizing the output of the RNG recite extra solution activity of the abstract idea (e.g., display and store the symbols of the feature game to be retrieved from memory via a lookup table (e.g., weighted table is analogous to a paytable) and/or invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (e.g., storing in a play meter stored in the at least one memory device), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that these additional limitations are not found amount to significantly more but recite a technological environment found in casino environments and/or are invoked as a tool to implement a wagering game.
The remaining limitations such as “an electronic gaming device comprising: a display device; and at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and the display device wherein the at least one processor is configured to:” recites a conventional electronic gaming device configured to a casino wagering game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that these limitations invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)).
In view of the aforementioned technological environment for managing a wagering game/casino environment, Claim 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For instance, the additional elements such as “a display device”, “at least one processor in communication with at least one processor” and “a random number generator (RNG)” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). These additional elements are invoked and/or perform well-known, routine, and/or conventional steps to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. As disclosed in Vancura (US 2010/0029381), a conventional electronic gaming machine includes a display device, at least one processor in communication with a memory device storing instructions to determine the outcome of a game utilizing a random number generator to the user (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows, that when these additional elements are viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements, they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, Claim 1 is found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more under Step 2B.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of the claimed invention discussed above. Claim 8 recites minor differences, in comparison to Claim 1, such as “analyze a first output from a random number generator”, “separate from a game outcome corresponding to a feature game including subsequent symbols and the at least one prize symbol”, and “subsequent symbols being included in each symbol position of the symbol array different from the at least one symbol positions including the at least one prize symbol, wherein the at least one prize symbol remains at the at least one symbol position when the subsequent symbols are included”. However, these differences do not alter the analysis as discussed with Claim 1 above because they amount to mere instructions which invoke a highly generalized computer components to implement the abstract idea, additional extra solution activity such as data gathering, and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Similarly, Claim 15 recites minor differences such as “obtain a first output from a random number generator (RNG)” and “control the spot prize associated with the at least one prize symbol to be stored in a player meter” do not alter the analysis as discussed above because they amount mere instructions to invoke a highly generalized computer components to implement the abstract idea, additional extra solution activity such as data gathering, and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, Claims 8 and 15 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as Claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-23, the claims have been reviewed and analyzed and are found to further recite additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). The following limitations of dependent claims 6-7, 13-13, and 19-23 have been found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recites the limitation “determine that a trigger condition is met in a base game” which is a rule and/or instruction of managing a game and/or mental processes because it recites an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion under Step 2A-prong 1.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recites the limitation “determine the game outcome based upon a Wild function allocated to the at least one prize symbol and other symbols displayed in the symbol array” which recites which is a rule and/or instruction of managing a game and/or mental processes because it recites an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion under Step 2A-prong 1.
The remaining limitations of dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-23 have been found to recite steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715