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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 04/28/2025.
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 organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic activities directed to hedging (wagering games are recognized as a form of hedging) and a mental process without significantly more. As per step 1 claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to a system or non-transitory medium and therefore include sufficient machine elements performing the steps. As per claims 8-14 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards a method claim involving game steps which include displaying but does not indicate a device performing the function of displaying or processing of the steps. Therefore claims 8-14 do not meet the requirements of step 1. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “present a game of chance featuring a game outcome display area, the game outcome display area including a plurality of strips of symbol positions, each strip of symbol positions associated with a corresponding set of symbols; and determine a game outcome for the game of chance responsive to receipt of an input signal indicating a play of the game of chance by: a) causing, for each symbol position in each strip of symbol positions, a symbol from the corresponding set of symbols associated with that strip of symbol positions to be selected and displayed as a displayed symbol in that symbol position; b) determining whether one or more feature game conditions have been met; c) causing, responsive to determining that the one or more feature game conditions have been met, each displayed symbol that is of the first category of symbol to be removed from the game outcome display area and thereby become a removed symbol; d) causing, for each removed symbol, an additional symbol from the same set of symbols from which that removed symbol was selected to be selected and then displayed as a displayed symbol in one of the symbol positions in the strip of symbol positions that includes the symbol position in which that removed symbol was displayed; e) repeating (c) and (d) until none of the symbols displayed concurrently in the symbol positions of the strips of symbol positions are of the first category of symbol; f) causing, responsive to determining that the one or more feature game conditions have been met and for each displayed symbol of the first category of symbol that is displayed as part of the game outcome, a corresponding feature game award to be i) displayed in the symbol position for that displayed symbol of the first category of symbol and ii) added to a credit balance associated with the game of chance; g) determining whether the symbols displayed in the game outcome display area form one or more winning patterns; and h) causing, for each winning pattern that is determined to be formed by the symbols displayed in the game outcome display area, a corresponding winning pattern award to be added to the credit balance.” as describing an invention regarding a slot game in the form of a chance game comprising a plurality of symbols selected from a plurality of reel sets to fill symbol positions wherein a certain symbol of a certain type is identified and removed in an iterative fashion with an award provided to the player with the empty positions filled by other symbols and a winning combination is further identified for the remaining symbols and a further award is provided. Additional dependent claims define further steps such as iterative looping and cash-on symbols being the specific symbol. As per the organizing human activity in the form of hedging as bolded above the language includes a chance game with the outcome providing an award in the form of a credit to a credit balance which is a wagering game and a recognized form of hedging as per the court. Specifically the claims include language that makes the game a wagering game. As per the mental step examiner recognizes the bolded sections of the claims include language regarding determining and steps in response to the determine which constitute a series of mental steps comprising rules for a game. The game rules comprise the feature of observation of information and applying the rule accordingly to a state of the game. These are mental steps that can be performed in the mind and can be performed in the mind by an individual based on outcomes produced. For example following rules for a game based on a displayed outcome is a mental step and can be performed in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a wagering game which is a form of hedging and a mental process in the form of game rules. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because determining result for hedging based on random determination or performing a mental step based on a displayed outcome. Specifically observing the state of the game and applying a rule accordingly remains a mental step and no recited steps beyond conventional feature or extra solution activity are recited that cannot be performed in the mind. Specifically following rules can be performed in the mind. Additional elements are addressed below regarding the display and hardware portions.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that additional elements are directed to conventional activities or extra solution activity. See below.
Limitation “system comprising: one or more displays, one or more processors, and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing computer- executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:”, “cause the one or more processors to cause each additional symbol to be displayed using an animation in which that additional symbol moves into an end-most symbol position of the symbol positions of the strip of symbol positions in which that additional symbol is to be displayed and in which each displayed symbol”, use of smartphone with an associated display device to perform and display the game, and other associated hardware and computer steps. The hardware elements are commonly found in the gaming art related to electronic slot machines or wagering terminals and therefore are no more than a generic recitation of computer hardware elements including network elements and therefore does not provide a practical application that amounts to more than the identified abstract idea. This includes the recitation of memory, processors, and displaying steps which are generically found in electronic gaming machine including the elements accepting wagers for the purpose of presenting an outcome and payout for the results. See US 6186894 B1 at col. 5, lines 25-38 regarding video slot reels including displaying outcomes and that the activity of spinning and producing random outcomes from a wagering game are conventional activities well-understood in the art. See Acres (US Pub. No. 2012/0172107 A1) teaches within the electronic gaming art the use of a random number generator to determine numbers for specific reel stop positions in order to determine an outcome which is evaluated if it is a winning combination of symbols appearing on a played payline (paragraph [0073]). Specifically it is conventional to communicate data to output to a user comprising animated spinning of a wager determining device (which would include reels or wheels) or static images to communicate an outcome and award due as well as the state of the game. Therefore these limitations do not provide a practical application. Further the means of displaying graphics and animations regarding a result or state of the game are conventional to the art and is directed towards extra solution activity as being a means to output information without changing the identified mental steps above. This includes the act of displaying particular animations regarding an outcome since these display steps are extra solution activity and directed to the outputting of data to inform a player which is conventional to the art. Further Fitzergerald et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0164156 A1) at paragraph [0096] discusses using a smartphone to login into a known gaming site to carry out a wagering game. Examiner therefore contends that a use of a smartphone to perform a game is the action of using a conventional computer since the smartphone acts in the manner of a conventional computer for performing the game by accessing a hosted game and performing the functions needed for play. Applicant has not included features for the smartphone that would go beyond conventional features and further would read beyond a conventional computer performing the function. Therefore the hardware and animation features do not provide a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias (US Pub. No. 2016/0364944 A1) in view of Pacey et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0033829 A1 hereinafter referred to as Pacey).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Elias teaches a smartphone, method, and non-transitory, computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions performed by a processor on a smartphone (paragraphs [0031] and [0071] comprising: one or more displays, one or more processors, and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (abstract, Figs. 1 and 9, and paragraph [0147] see a s system that includes a network setup and a plurality of gaming devices with associated hardware such as processors and memory) to: present a game of chance featuring a game outcome display area on the display device, the game outcome display area including a plurality of strips of symbol positions, each strip of symbol positions associated with a corresponding set of symbols (Figs. 8A-8E and paragraph [0013] describes a slot reel game comprising a plurality of displayed symbols and symbol positions); and determine a game outcome for the game of chance responsive to receipt of an input signal indicating a play of the game of chance (paragraphs [0013] and [0116]-[0117] player places a wager and a game outcome is produced) by: a) causing, for each symbol position in each strip of symbol positions, a symbol from the corresponding set of symbols associated with that strip of symbol positions to be selected and displayed as a displayed symbol on the display device and in that symbol position (Figs. 8A-8E and paragraphs [0018] and [0026] outcome is randomly selected and displayed comprising a plurality of symbols); b) determining whether one or more feature game conditions have been met (Figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs [0018] and [0100] see for example paragraph [0018] wherein a special scatter symbol, such as the star in Figs. 8A-8C, or a particular combination of symbols is removed and a cascading occurs to replace the removed symbol); c) causing, responsive to determining that the one or more feature game conditions have been met, each displayed symbol that is of the first category of symbol to be removed from the game outcome display area presented on the display device and thereby become a removed symbol (Figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs [0018] and [0100] see for example paragraph [0018] wherein a special scatter symbol, such as the star in Figs. 8A-8C, is removed and a cascading occurs to replace the removed symbol); d) causing, for each removed symbol, an additional symbol from the same set of symbols from which that removed symbol was selected to be selected and then displayed as a displayed symbol in one of the symbol positions in the strip of symbol positions that includes the symbol position in which that removed symbol was displayed (Figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs [0018] and [0100] see for example paragraph [0018] wherein a special scatter symbol, such as the star in Figs. 8A-8C, is removed and a cascading occurs to replace the removed symbol); e) repeating (c) and (d) until none of the symbols displayed concurrently in the symbol positions of the strips of symbol positions are of the first category of symbol (paragraph [0020] repeats if a new symbols are removed until no more qualify); f) causing, responsive to determining that the one or more feature game conditions have been met and for each displayed symbol of the first category of symbol that is displayed as part of the game outcome, a corresponding feature game award to be added to a credit balance associated with the game of chance (paragraph [0128] removing symbols include the feature of adding value to the credit meter based on the removed symbols); g) determining whether the symbols displayed in the game outcome display area form one or more winning patterns (paragraph [0018] includes the additional steps of determining if a new winning outcome is present after cascading finishes “paylines are re-evaluated to determine whether additional winning combinations have been created as a result of the replacing of removed symbols during the cascade feature”); and h) causing, for each winning pattern that is determined to be formed by the symbols displayed in the game outcome display area, a corresponding winning pattern award to be added to the credit (paragraph [0046]) balance (paragraph [0018] includes the additional steps of determining if a new winning outcome is present after cascading finishes “paylines are re-evaluated to determine whether additional winning combinations have been created as a result of the replacing of removed symbols during the cascade feature” with paylines paying out in credits based on winning combinations “payouts are awarded for certain pre-determined combinations of symbols appearing along paylines of the game (e.g., for winning combinations of symbols along paylines comprising symbol positions across a plurality of the reels)”). Elias does not teach a game comprising f) causing, responsive to determining that the one or more feature game conditions have been met and for each displayed symbol of the first category of symbol that is displayed on the display device as part of the game outcome, a corresponding feature game award to be i) displayed on the display device in the symbol position for that displayed symbol of the first category of symbol and ii) added to a credit balance associated with the game of chance. However, Pacey teaches a slot game (abstract) comprising a symbol removal on award feature (Figs. 6-9 and paragraphs [0020]-[0021] see three diamonds) wherein after first removal but before the position is empty a total credit award to be added is displayed (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0020] see item 40a) wherein the credit award is added to the credit meter (paragraph [0020] “the winning match 40a is replaced with the number "5" to indicate that the match is associated with an award of 5 credits. The award is shown on an award meter 46 and added to the credit meter 42”). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Elias with Pacey, since by displaying what credit amount is being awarded for the feature symbols on the reels the gaming system of Elias makes clearer to a player how much they are winning and why thereby encouraging further play by allowing a player to better understand the results.
As per claim 4, 11, and 18, Elias does not teach a system, method, or medium sets of symbols associated with the strips of symbol positions are configured such that there is at least one game outcome selectable from the sets of symbols that results in more symbols of the first category of symbols being displayed and removed from that game outcome than there are symbol positions in the game outcome display area. However Elias teaches a game comprising removing symbols and dropping new symbols into place based on outcomes wherein more symbols are generated over a play of a game than symbol positions in the game (Figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs [0018] and [0100] see for example paragraph [0018] wherein a special scatter symbol, such as the star in Figs. 8A-8C, is removed and a cascading occurs to replace the removed symbol). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Elias with the design choice to include outcomes wherein more symbols are generated and replaced than positions present with the number including more of the first type than positions if a very high paying outcome is desired which further excites a player. Specifically as written this is a design choice about the reel sets about which outcomes can be included and if desired examiner recognizes that a outcome which reads on this feature is obvious to include and is a design choice by the gaming operators.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Elias teaches a system, method, and medium wherein the one or more feature game conditions are met when at least a predetermined number of symbols of the first category of symbols are concurrently displayed in the game outcome display area as part of the game outcome (Figs. 8A-8C and paragraphs [0018] and [0100] can be a scatter symbol or a particular combination of symbols such as a certain number of “B” symbols).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Elias teaches a system, method, and medium wherein the one or more memory devices further store additional computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least perform (g) and (h) after none of the symbols displayed concurrently in the symbol positions of the strips of symbol positions are of the first category of symbol (paragraph [0018] includes the additional steps of determining if a new winning outcome is present after cascading finishes “paylines are re-evaluated to determine whether additional winning combinations have been created as a result of the replacing of removed symbols during the cascade feature” and therefore would have a payline evaluation at the end of the game or at least once after steps (g) and (h).).
As per claims 7 and 14, Elias teaches a system and method wherein the one or more memory devices further store additional computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to also perform (g) and (h) at least once in between (a) and (g) (paragraph [0020] repeats if a new symbols are removed until no more qualify and paragraph [0018] includes the additional steps of determining if a new winning outcome is present after cascading finishes “paylines are re-evaluated to determine whether additional winning combinations have been created as a result of the replacing of removed symbols during the cascade feature” and therefore would have a payline evaluation somewhere between the steps of (a) to (g) if a new removal event occurs since a payline evaluation occurs after a removal event.).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias (US Pub. No. 2016/0364944 A1) and Pacey et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0033829 A1 hereinafter referred to as Pacey) in view of Bolling, Jr. (US Pub. No. 2019/0378375 A1 hereinafter referred to as Bolling).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Elias does not teach a system wherein: the symbol positions in each strip of symbol positions lie along a corresponding path, the symbols in each set of symbols are in a predefined order, and the one or more memory devices further store additional computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: cause the symbols that are selected and displayed in the symbol positions of each strip of symbol positions to be displayed in the strip of symbol positions, and select and display the symbols from each set of symbols in the same order that those symbols are in within that set of symbols. However, Elias teaches symbols from a reel set (Figs. 8A-8E see symbols displayed on reels) with symbols cascading down including adding new symbols based on empty positions (Figs. 8A-8E) and Bolling teaches a slot game (abstract) comprising a plurality of reel strips with an order to symbols (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0018]) wherein added symbols descend down based on an order in the reel set associated with the reel (paragraph [0094]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Elias with Pacey and Bolling, since Elias is modifiable to include a specific ordered reel set so that the replacement feature is less random thereby providing an element of sureness when adding new symbols which reduces the requirements to generate new random outcomes.
As per claim 3, 10, and 17, Elias teaches a system, method, and medium wherein the one or more memory devices further store additional computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to cause each additional symbol to be displayed using an animation in which that additional symbol moves into an end-most symbol position of the symbol positions of the strip of symbol positions in which that additional symbol is to be displayed and in which each displayed symbol, if any, in a symbol position between that end-most symbol position and the symbol position of the removed symbol that the additional symbol was selected responsive to moves along the path and away from the end-most symbol position (Figs. 8A-8E and paragraph [0018] "cascade feature may be displayed as an animation that displays symbols moving down into vacated symbol positions from above").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against a 101 rejection applying to a wagering game claim. As per applicant's arguments see highlighted sections which indicate wagering features such as modifying a credit balance based on an outcome in a game of chance. This is a wagering game. A claim does not specifically have to say wagering in order to read on a wagering game. It is the interpretation of one of ordinary skill in the art that the cited limitations read on a wagering game. Including language about a game of chance which provides a credit award is a wagering game as one of ordinary skill in the art would view it. A wagering game reads on a judicial exception as discussed in the case.
As per applicant's arguments regarding Smith examiner was not part of the decision to allow the claims and does not know what 101 analysis was used on the claims allowed. Examiner relies upon guidelines provided and does not comment on whether or not those guidelines apply to past cases. Examiner notes that the appeal decision is only to the rejected claims which were affirmed and not the allowed claims 20-21. Therefore the appeal court did not appear to consider these claims. As per the claims that were considered the appeal court appears to uphold that a wagering game reads on a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the distribution of cards. This would read on applicant's game of chance with a credit award. Examiner notes that the courts have not limited it to only cards for considering wagering games. Therefore applicant seems to rely upon the computer elements since the actual game rules were rejected. Examiner does not know what computer elements were found allowable in Smith but that applicant's features read on a generic machine as argued and therefore does not provide sufficient elements under current 101. Therefore the rejection is maintained. Examiner has considered the appeal decision, the reasons for allowance, and maintains the current rejection. Examiner has explained that examiner finds, similar to the appeal court, that a wagering game is recited and that, based on current guidelines, that the computer elements are generic. Therefore the rejection is both maintained and citing the patent is not found persuasive to overcome the rejection.
As per applicant's argued improvement the removal of a symbol is a game rule and not a technology improvement to the display. This reads on an animation feature for displaying an outcome and therefore is both conventional, regarding use of animation, and extra solution activity regarding the theme. Specifically the method of playing the game allows for multiple game winning outcomes to be identified without having one block the other. Examiner notes that this practical application appears to be directed solely at how the game is played and not a technical improvement in the field. Therefore this reads on an innovation argument and not a technology improvement. Examiner notes that “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Including new ways to generate strings of game wins is a rule for the game and not a technology improvement. Therefore this reads on step 2B features wherein the element of displaying game outcomes is conventional and the theme, or what information is displayed, is directed towards extra solution activity. Specifically displaying a game rule based outcome often reads on a theme of a game and examiner reads the removing of symbols for more winning pattern to additionally be directed towards a themed animation and not a technology improvement. Therefore applying rules does not present a practical application. Applicant should express an improvement directed towards the function of the machine if present. As for space efficient GUI examiner notes that generating new symbols on symbol reels is conventional and it is unclear how the display acts in a manner, beyond the theme, that acts as a technology improvement beyond what is known. It is already known that reel strips have more symbols present than can be shown and therefore display techniques to communicate this in a space efficient manner are known. Specifically a reel spin. The removing and adding new symbols does not appear to be radically different or have machines act in a manner radically different as to be an improvement beyond a game theme which is extra solution activity. Therefore at this time the 101 rejection is maintained.
As per applicant's 103 arguments applicant argues that Elias does not display an award for each special symbol and a corresponding award amount. The credit amount displayed by Pacey would be for each symbol of the winning outcome so this would have been obvious over the prior art. As per applicant's arguments against awards of Scatter symbols as special symbols see Figs. 8A-8D with focus on from 8B to 8C wherein each scatter symbol is removed and considered for an award such as the bonus ladder. This would be individual treatment of each special symbol. Additionally if applicant is arguing scatter symbols do not count towards a credit award see at least paragraph [0016] which would be an award of credits based on a game condition. Therefore the 103 rejection is maintained.
As per amended features see above. Specifically the use of a smartphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 10/21/2025