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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
It is first noted that there was a typo in the previous Office action about the pending claims. Such typos are corrected in the present application.
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 08/28/2025. Presently, claims 1-8, 10-12, and 15-21 are pending.
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 1-8, 10-12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) An electronic gaming system comprising: a plurality of electronic gaming devices including a first gaming device, a second gaming device, and at least one other gaming device, wherein each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices comprises a display device; and a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, wherein the at least one memory device includes computer-executable instructions stored thereon that cause the as least one processor to: cause display at least one progressive play meter at each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, the at least one progressive play meter includes a number of progressive free plays displayed on the display device for each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices during play of an electronic game, and wherein the at least one memory device of the controller for the first gaming device further includes the computer-executable instructions stored thereon that cause the at least one processor to: determine, during the electronic game, that a progressive free play symbol is displayed on the display device of the first gaming device; and based upon determining that the progressive free play symbol is displayed, cause the number of the progressive free plays to be incremented to an updated number of progressive free plays on the first gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices; and a progressive controller distinct from and in communication with the controller for each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, wherein the progressive controller comprises at least one distinct processor and at least one distinct memory device, wherein the at least one distinct memory devices includes distinct computer-executable instructions stored thereon that cause the at least one processor to: store, in the at least one distinct memory device, a data structure associating a plurality of input values with a set of paytables of a plurality of sets of paytables; cause display of a linked progressive meter at each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, wherein the linked progressive meter includes a number of linked progressive free spins displayed on the display device of each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices during play of the electronic game, the number of linked progressive free spins stored in the at least one distinct memory device and associated with a plurality of sets of paytables stored in the at least one distinct memory device; determine, during the electronic game, that a linked progressive free spin symbol is displayed on the display device of the second gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices; based upon determining that the linked progressive free spin symbol is displayed, cause the number of linked progressive free spins to be increased to an updated number of linked progressive free spins; based upon the updated number of linked progressive free spins, cause display of the updated number of linked progressive free spins at each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, wherein each of the plurality of electronic gaming devices is eligible to present the updated number of linked progressive free spins during play of a feature game; determine the feature game is triggered on the second gaming device; communicate with the controller of the second gaming device to identify an input value provided at the second gaming device during the second electronic game prior to the feature game being triggered; and in response to the feature game being triggered at the second gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming devices, determine, based on a lookup of the data structure using the input value provided at the second gaming device, a paytable from the plurality of sets of paytables stored in the at least one memory device, wherein each set of paytables of the plurality of set of paytables is associated with a distinct input value to control a return to player (RTP) independent of the updated number of linked progressive free spins during play of the feature game; generate an outcome of the feature game based on the paytable and in connection with at least one output of a random number generator (RNG) and the updated number of linked progressive free spins and cause display at the second gaming device of one or more spin outcomes of the feature game based on the generated outcome of the feature games. The above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea fitting within the category of mental process (determination steps) and certain methods of organizing human activity (that is managing rules for a wagering game). In addition, the elements of a lookup table and displaying of results after generating an outcome based on the lookup table appear to be extra solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is only applied to particular technological field, that of electronic gaming machines, which insufficient to bring into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are basic computing parts that is an electronic gaming machine, a display, a processor, etc. are all claimed broadly enough to read on a general-purpose computer and as such are not sufficient to bring the claims into patent eligibility as determined by the Supreme Court in Alice.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant first argues that the steps listed could not be done practically in the human mind because they involve controlling display devices, generating outcomes, etc. (See Arguments, page 16). However, as noted above, several of the claim limitations state “determine” steps. For example, “determine during the electronic game that a linked progressive free spin symbol is displayed on the display device of the second gaming device of the plurality of electronic gaming device.” This step could easily be done by a person looking at a gaming device and seeing, sure enough, there is a free spin symbol displayed. This is the same with the other “determine” steps as well.
The Applicant then argues that “The present claims are not directed to interactions between people but are instead directed to controlling multiple electronic devices,” (Arguments, page 16, emphasis in original) and as such cannot be certain methods of organizing human activity (See Arguments, page 16). This is not agreed upon as the courts and the MPEP have been clear that certain methods of organizing human activity includes rules for managing a wagering game (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) which is what the claims are directed to. As such, Applicant’s argument is not found convincing.
Applicant then argues that the claims provide a technical solution by providing a data structure linked to EGMs (Arguments, pages17-19). Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not found persuasive. That is the invention is not actually directed to what Applicant is claiming but rather appears to be trying to include “magic language” to determine that the claims should now be eligible when in fact what is now included was not the thrust of what Applicant invented but rather is just using it as an argument to overcome an ineligibility rejection. The Supreme Court itself warned that eligibility does not depend upon the draftsman art (Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, 1985 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978) and Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715