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, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 17-18m and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 17-18, and 21 under 35 USC 101. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claimed “multiplier ladder feature of the game” is not merely arranging transactional information of the feature game on a graphical user interface and/or that the one or more RNG calls merely satisfy regulatory and/or gaming requirements and/or a field of use (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to “not making one or more RNG calls per the feature game” which are directed to technological advances related to “techniques to reduce the underlying amount of data processing/table lookups required by an electronic gaming system” in the context of a novel software program feature which integrates the claims into a particular arrangement (see Remarks, pg. 9-11). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims as a whole recite a practical application of any alleged judicial exception because the use of “multiplier ladders as a creative solution to avoid making one or more RNG calls per feature game instance for the determination of reel stop positions” (se Remarks, pg. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a multiplier ladder feature of the game. Specifically, the claims recite invoking an electronic gaming machine to determine an outcome of the game using the multiplier ladders. It follows that claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a multiplier ladder of a game. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
With respect to integration into a practical application, the Applicant’s representative that the claims subject matter recites a particular arrangement for a novel software program that does not make one or more RNG calls per the feature game which improves the efficiency and processing of the novel software. Specifically, the claim as amended recites another game feature to activate “an extra wild feature for the first reel does not involve randomly determining an outcome for the first reel” and “wherein the activation of the extra wild feature for the second reel does not involve randomly determining an outcome for the second reel” which provides an improved efficiency because it does not require an RNG call (see Remarks, pg. 9-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The aforementioned limitations recite a rule and/or instruction for managing the extra wild feature which is construed as part of the certain method of organizing human activity. For instance, the negative limitation to perform the feature “that does not involve” randomly determining an outcome of the reel does not provide any sufficient details as to how the functioning of the computer is improved or how the replacement of the first reel with a first multiplier ladder improves the underlying functionality of the computer as opposed to a rule and/or instruction of the game itself. Moreover, the claim generally recites the effect of the judicial exception of accomplishing the improvement to the processing of the gaming machine which amounts to a merely adding words “apply it” to the judicial exception as oppose to the confining the application to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception. Stated differently, as the claim recite an idea of a solution and/or outcome without the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It follows that the recited limitation “does not involve randomly determining an outcome” does not provide an additional element but directed to a rule and/or instruction for managing the game which does not integrate the claim into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is 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, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as: “randomly determine to activate an extra wild feature for a first reel of the plurality of reels, wherein the activation of the extra wild feature for the first reel does not involve randomly determining an outcome on the first reel;” – certain method of organizing human activity; “based on the activation of the extra wild feature for the first reel,” “replace the first reel the first reel with a first multiplier ladder, wherein the first multiplier ladder comprises a first plurality of possible multiplier values;” -certain method of organizing human activity; “randomly determine, a multiplier value for the first multiplier ladder” – certain method of organizing human activity; “randomly determine to activate the extra wild feature for a second reel of the plurality of reels, wherein the activation of the extra wild feature for the second reel does not involve randomly determining an outcome for the second reel;” – certain method of organizing human activity; “based on the activation of the extra wild feature for the second reel,” “replace the second reel of the plurality of reels with a second multiplier ladder, wherein the second multiplier ladder comprises a second plurality of possible multiplier values;”-certain method of organizing human activity; “determine that the first multiplier ladder and the second multiplier are adjacent to each other” – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; “determine multiplier values for a third multiplier ladder comprising a third plurality of possible multiplier values by multiplying the determined first multiplier value with each of the respective second plurality of possible multiplier values” – certain method of organizing human activity, mental process, and/or mathematical concept. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a feature game. Additionally, some of the indicated limitations that have been identified as a mental process are found to recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion. Furthermore, at least one limitation has been identified as being directed to a mathematical concept because it recites a mathematical relationship, formula, and/or calculation. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of 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 system”, “a game controller comprising one or more processors, the gaming controller executing instructions which cause the game controller to:”, “display, on the display system, a plurality of reels, wherein each reel of the plurality of reels initially has the same dimensions on the display system”, “cause the display system to replace the first reel”, “cause the display system to display the determined multiplier value for the first multiplier ladder”, “cause the display system to replace the second reel”, “on the display system”, and “cause the display system to display the first multiplier ladder and second multiplier ladder merging into the third multiplier ladder having the determined third plurality of possible multiplier values, wherein the third multiplier ladder has larger dimensions on the display system than any of the plurality of reels that have not been replaced with a multiplier ladder” each recite a step and/or instruction which invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea (e.g., data gathering of a first and second random number as a source of entropy), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements such as “a display system” and “a game controller comprising one or more processors” are highly-generalized computer components that have been invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a display system and a game controller comprising one or more processors, the game controller executing instructions which cause the game controller to manage a game (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0037-0040). Moreover, a review of the Specification indicates that the RNG calls recite commercially available, known and well understood components in the prior art to drive game determinations as a source of entropy in accordance with regulatory considerations (see Specification, 0023, 0031, 0036, 0053-0056, 0079, 0082-0084). It follows that these components when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not indicative of significantly more but are well-understood, routine, and conventional components utilized in a manner known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 12 and 18, the claims recite substantially the same scope as claimed by independent Claim 1 but are directed to the embodiments of a method and machine-readable devices as opposed to a gaming system. The analysis of the subject matter of the claims is discussed above and incorporated herein. For substantially the same reasons as discussed above, the claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 6-7, 10-11, 15, 17, and 21, the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed and the additional limitations were found to recite at least one of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity, 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, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 17-18, and 21 are found to recite an abstract idea 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