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 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to a specific technical solution and provides a technological solution to “suspend determination of prize value indicators for configurable symbols until after determining reel stop positions for the reel strips, and determine prize value indicators only for those symbol positions where a configurable symbol is determined to be displayed, thereby reducing computation processing requirements compared to determining prize value indicators for all configurable symbols on the reel strips” (see Remarks, pg. 8-9). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims recite “a specific algorithm for managing computational resources in a gaming device: conditionally processing RNG determinations based on reel stop positions to reduce processing requirements” and is tied to “the operation of gaming devices with reel strips, configurable symbols and multi-window feature games” that recite a specific solution to a specific problem in gaming device technology under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10-11) and ii) recite as a whole significantly more because the claims recite “the conditional execution of RNG determinations based on reel stop positions determination” that provides a technical solution to computations efficiency problems in gaming devices (see Remarks pg. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem. As is clear from the cited portions of the Specification, the computational demand is created by the particular game rule to “conduct multiple simultaneous feature games” and does not provide the particular details as to how the processor of the gaming machine improves efficiency and reducing computational demand that would be a technical solution to a technical problem. The cited portions of the Specification, recite merely the general statement that “determination of the value of the configurable symbol may be suspected until after a reel stop positions is determine for each reel and values for configurable symbols are only determined for those symbol display positions where a configurable symbol is determined to have landed or displayed. This is a rule and/or instruction for managing the feature game (e.g., like a hold and spin game), as does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem but the abstract idea itself. Moreover, it is unclear as to how the results-oriented language, as to how splitting the process into steps for i) suspending the prize value and ii) providing the prize values improves computational requirements as the claim increases the number of steps performed as opposed to completing them in one processing cycle. Rather, the delayed determination and subsequent determination of the prize values, appears to be directed to steps to managing the feature game to arrange transactional information so that the player may quickly and understand the progress of the game which the courts have indicated is not an improvement to computer functionality.
Moreover, the claimed improvement of “reducing computational processing requirements compared to determining prize value indicators for all configurable symbols on the reel strips” recites a desired result but does not explicitly set forth the improvement because all configurable symbols on the reel strips are not required by the execution of the base game and therefore no reductions in computational processing requirements is not a technical problem because the claimed base game does not require determining prize value indicators for all configurable symbols on the reel strips but only the ones that occur in the outcome. For instance, the claimed improvement recites a reduction in processing requirements compared to a situation that is not required by the claimed invention. A processor that is running a base game only needs to evaluate the symbols that appear as a result for the outcome not “all of the configurable symbols on the reel strips”. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any reduction in instances of the game when there is only one configurable symbol being selected and/or when all configurable symbols of the reel strips are required to be determined in the base game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments to Examiner’s arguments, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims do not merely i) invoke a computer as a tool but recite a specific improvement to how the gaming device processes data which is analogous to Enfish and ii) the cited reference of Vancura shows that the individual components are known but fails to show that “conditionally executing RNG determinations based on reel stop positions to reduce computational requirements is an improvement to gaming device operation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.. As noted above, the claim does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem but merely states a desired result that arises from the abstract idea itself (e.g., multiple simultaneous feature games) for evaluating and determining prize values for configurable symbols in a game outcome. It follows that when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements, the claims recite steps and/or instructions directed to managing a game that is invoked on a computer as a tool to implement as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea that does not amount to significantly more. 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 1-20 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 that are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas which are underlined in the analysis below:
1. An electronic gaming device comprising:
a display device having a plurality of symbol positions;
a controller comprising a processor and memory storing a symbol set including a plurality of configurable symbols, data indicative of a threshold, and instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least;
in a base game by: - certain method of organizing human activity;
suspend determination of prize value indicators for configurable symbols until after determining reel stop positions for the reel strips, and determine prize value indicators only for those symbol positions where a configurable symbol is determined to be displayed, -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
thereby reducing computational processing requirement compared to determining prize value indicators for all configurable symbols on the reel strips;
control the display device to animate a plurality of game symbols being selected from the symbol set at the plurality of symbol positions based on one or more random numbers generated by the random number generator;
control the display device to animate each configurable symbol being transformed with a visual indicator to form a configured symbol upon the configurable symbol being displayed, the visual indicator being selected from a plurality of prize value indicators and a mystery prize indicator based on one or more random numbers generated by the random number generator; -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine a number of configured symbols displayed among the plurality of game symbols displayed; -certain method of organizing human activity;
control the display device to animate a feature game when the number of configured symbols has reached the threshold, and in the feature game: -certain method of organizing human activity;
control the display device to animate the first game window being visually replicated into a plurality of game windows each replicating the configured symbol of the first game window at corresponding symbol positions,
suspend determination of a value for the mystery prize indicator in each of the game windows replicated, --certain method of organizing human activity;
determine, responsive to each of the game windows with a first configured symbol having the mystery prize indicator, a first prize value indicator, a first prize value indicator individually selected from thee plurality of prize indicators based on weightings for each configured symbol with the mystery prize indicator,– certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process, and
access the memory to determine an outcome of the feature game based on one or more outcomes of the base game and the prize value indicators in the plurality of game windows. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process.
The limitations underlined above are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage a base game and feature game. The indicated portions that are found to be directed to mental processes are found to be recite an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion capable of being made in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are 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: “control the display device to animate a plurality of game symbols being selected from the symbol set at the plurality of symbol positions based on one or more random numbers generated by the random number generator”, “control the display device to animate a plurality of game symbols”, “based on one or more random numbers generated by the random number generator”, “control the display device to animate the first game window being visually replicated into a plurality of game windows each replicating the configured symbol of the first game window at corresponding symbol positions”, “and one or more random number generated by the random number generator”, and “accessing the memory to” are 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)). The remaining additional limitations such as: “an electronic gaming device”, “a display device having a plurality of symbol positions;” and “a controller comprising a processor and memory storing a symbol set including a plurality of configurable symbols, data indicative of a threshold, and instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to at least:” and “thereby reducing computational processing requirement compared to determining prize value indicators for all configurable symbols on the reel strips” recite steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment and/or field of use to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these 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 an electronic gaming device comprising: “a display device”, “a controller comprising a processor and memory”, and “a random number generator” when viewed individually and/or as collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. It follows that the claims are similar to Alice v. CLS, in that the additional elements recite highly-generalized computer components to be invoked 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)). For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional electronic gaming machine comprises a display device, a controller comprising a processor and memory storing instructions to execute a game, and a random number generator to randomly determine outcomes of the game is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). Therefore, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 11 and 16, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 as analyzed and discussed above. The claims differ in that independent Claim 11 is directed to the embodiment of a non-transitory computer-readable medium but is otherwise substantially similar to independent Claim 1. Similarly, independent Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter but differs in that it references “a first game” and “a second game” as opposed to “a base game” and “a feature game” recited by independent Claim 1. These differences do not change the analysis or evaluation under the two-part Alice test. It follows that for substantially the same reasons as independent Claim 1, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10,12-15, and 17-20, the limitations of the dependent claims have been reviewed and analyzed and were found to recite additional steps directed to a grouping of abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), instructions to 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. For at least these reasons, the claims 1-20 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