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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that claims 1-20 are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are i) not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-11); integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 11-12); and iii) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed in the sections below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative asserts that independent Claim 1, as amended, does not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that when taken as a whole, the claims provides a specific technical way of achieving a specific result on a gaming machine. In particular, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite a specific, technical implementation in an electronic gaming machine that leverage a “plurality of different game modes and a plurality of lookup tables in conjunction with an RNG” which also configure an increase in size of prize values associated with a persistent symbol display matrix and a corresponding decrease in frequency or odds of activation associated with the persistent display matrix to maintain a designated RTP according to the identified lookup table corresponding to the detected feature game mode and using a random outcome generated by the RNG. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s conclusion. The Examiner asserts that steps and/or instructions for managing a base and feature game to generate a specific result is construed as managing a game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity. In particular, the Examiner notes that the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite the limitations such as “detect one of a plurality of different game modes as being a feature game mode;” “at least a feature game to have an increase in size of prize values associated with a persistent symbol display matrix and a corresponding decrease in frequency or odds of activating the persistent symbol display matrix to maintain a designated return-to player (RTP)” and “a base game configured to generate and present, based at least in part of an outcome generated by the random number generate, a base game outcome including a base game symbols in a base game display matrix” and rules of the base and feature game such as: “in response to a feature game trigger, based at least in part on configurable symbols…in a feature game matrix” and “in response to a persistent symbol display matrix trigger, control the display system to display an activation of one or more display positions…that adds the feature game symbols at the one or more display positions to the feature game outcome” that are indicative that the claims recite steps and/or instructions for managing a base and feature game and/or insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., display steps that recite an arrangement of the symbols to indicate the outcome of the game). While the claims do encompass steps for a “plurality of different game modes and a plurality of lookup tables in conjunction with an RNG” these elements of the claims are not found to be directed to a new and/or novel technical implementation in an electronic gaming machine but rather leverages use of known techniques that are indicative that the claimed subject matter recites managing a wagering game in a particular regulated technological gaming environment. For instance, Gauselmann (US 2004/0048657 A1) discloses that the setting of outcome probabilities, such as selection of a mode in a program ROM to change probabilities of selecting combinations randomly selected by the random number generator or associating with random numbers in a lookup table, is well-known in the gaming arts (see Gauselmann, 0032). Moreover, Kup-Ferroth (US 2010/0304832 A1) discloses that it is known to use a probability table stored in memory to vary the odds of particular positions being selected, to control the odds of particular outcomes occurring and to control the return to player of the game (see Kup-Ferroth, 0095). It follows that the use of known techniques in the gaming arts does not provide an improvement to the functioning of the electronic gaming machine and/or an improvement to any other technology or technical field but the mere application of known techniques to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts to invoke an electronic gaming machine as a tool to implement the abstract idea. It follows that these limitations are not found to recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem but amount to steps and/or instructions to manage a plurality of feature game modes that invokes computer or other machinery (e.g., the RNG, lookup tables and electronic gaming machine) merely as a tool to perform an existing process known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive that the claims, even when viewed as a whole, are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
Under Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative maintains that the subject matter of claim 1 improves technology involving electronic gaming environments with gaming devices and systems as shown in paragraph [0086]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited portions of the Specification recite the idea of a solution to utilize lookup tables and invoke a random number generator to generate probabilities of selecting prize payout amounts which amounts to steps to mitigate risk and/or hedging typically used in managing wagering games in accordance with regulatory requirements that does not amount to an improvement but to the abstract idea itself. The cited portions are not found to recite a specific and/or technical implementation, as the details of how the inventor intended to achieve the RNG conversion engine of 370 or the particular lookup tables 372A-372N are not sufficiently described. The lack of adequate technical description that might show or provide a particular algorithm to show how the inventor intended to achieve the purported technical improvement to lookup tables and/or RNG conversion engines indicates that there is not a particular improvement to the art of lookup tables and/or RNG conversion engines. It follows that the Applicant’s own Specification appears to indicate that the RNG, RNG conversion engine, and/or plurality of lookup tables to map the RNG outcome to a game outcome would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts and that they are invoked merely as a tool to perform an existing process known in the wagering game arts. For at least these reasons, the limitations as amended are found to recite mere instructions to apply the exception used to perform a commonplace business method (e.g., a base and feature game) being applied on a general purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative asserts that for reasons that are apparent from the absence of any prior art rejections the recited features of independent Claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field because an inventive concept is present. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant’s representative is correct that the claims are not rejected under the prior art, the analysis under 101 are separate from the findings under the requirements under 35 USC 102/103 which are not at issue in the instant application. In contrast, as shown in the rejection below, the prior art indicates that the claimed techniques and recited features of the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for implementing wagering games utilizing a conventional electronic gaming machine by one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, 2010/0029381 A1 – Fig. 1, 0037-0040; Gauselmann, 0032; and Kup-Ferroth, 0095). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 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 1-20 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, recites limitations which are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as a certain method of organizing human activity as indicated in the underlined portions below:
1. (Currently Amended) A gaming machine, comprising:
a display system including one or more display devices; and a control system including one or more processors and one or more memory device; and a random number generator implemented in the one or more processors and in the one or more memory devices, the random number generator configured to generate random outcomes;
the one or more memory devices storing instructions, executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least:
detect one of a plurality of different game modes as being a feature game mode; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
identify one of a plurality of lookup tables as corresponding to the detected feature game mode; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
configure, according to the identified lookup table and using a random outcome generated by the random number generator, at least a feature game to have an increase in size of prize values associated with a persistent symbol display matrix and a corresponding decrease in frequency or odds of activating the persistent symbol display matrix to maintain a designated return-to-player (RTP); -certain method of organizing human activity
control the display system to display a base game configured to generate and present, based at least in part on an outcome generated by the random number generator, a base game outcome including base game symbols in a base game display matrix; - certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to a feature game trigger, based at least in part on configurable symbols in the base game display matrix, control the display system to display the feature game configured to generate and present a feature game outcome including feature game symbols in a feature game matrix; and -certain method of organizing human activity;
in response to a persistent symbol display matrix trigger, control the display system to display an activation of one or more display positions of the persistent symbol display matrix that adds the feature game symbols at the one or more display positions to the feature game outcome. – certain method of organizing human activity;
The claim limitations have been identified as being directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of steps and/or instructions for managing a game outcome of a base game and feature game(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). Moreover, some of the limitations have been additional found to recite mental processes because they amount to an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a display system including one or more display devices; and a control system including one or more processors and one or more memory device; and a random number generator implemented in the one or more processors and in the one or more memory devices, the random number generator configured to generate random outcomes;” “the one or more memory devices storing instructions, executable by the one or more processors to cause the control system to at least:” “control the display system to display a base game” “control the display to display the feature game”, and “control the display system to display an activation of one or more display positions” recite steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant 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 this reasons, the additional limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a player interface” “a display system comprising one or more display devices;” and “a control system comprising one or more processors causes, the control system to:” and “based at least in part on an outcome of the random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements do not amount to significantly more but recite highly-generalized computer components to invoke a computer to implement the abstract idea, 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 machine comprises a player interface, a display system comprising one or more display devices, a control system comprising one or more processor causes, the control system to at least:” and determines outcomes of the game “based at least in part on an outcome of the random number generator” as known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0037-0040). Additionally, Gauselmann (US 2004/0048657 A1) discloses that selection of mode in particular software to change the probabilities of various winning symbol combinations by associating combinations with one or more random numbers from output of a random number generator are well-known techniques in the gaming arts (see Gauselmann, 0032). Furthermore, Kup-Ferroth (US 2010/0304832 A1) discloses it is known to use probabilities tables stored in memory to vary the odds of particular game combinations to be selected to thereby control the return to player of the game (see Kups-Ferroth, 0095). It follows that the additional elements of the claims when viewed individually and/or as a combination do not amount to an inventive concept but recite conventional techniques used in wagering games to mitigate and hedge risk for maintaining a return to player that is used in known and conventional electronic gaming machines. For at least these reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 11 and 17, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 which was analyzed above. The claims are different in that they are directed to the method of a gaming machine and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodiment. However, these differences do not change the analyze and the claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 13-16, and 18-20, each of the limitations of the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite additional steps and/or instructions of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
Conclusion
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