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 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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-9 recite a method including:
(a) under control of a display control processing system associated with a gaming machine, causing a video display system of the gaming machine to display a number of activation icons displaying, each individually selectable by a player via a touchscreen of a player input system, each activation icon being associated with a respective activation value so that the number of activation icons define an activation value range from a minimum activation value to a maximum activation value, the maximum activation value being greater than the minimum activation value;
(b) receiving an activation selection input at the gaming machine through the player input system of the gaming machine, the activation selection input selecting one of the number of activation icons;
(c) in response to the activation selection input and under control of a result generating processing system associated with the gaming machine, obtaining a result for the activation selection input, the obtaining including first risking a number of credits equal to the respective activation associated with the selected activation icon, the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value defined by the received activation selection input; and
(d) where the result for the activation selection input comprises a winning result, causing the video display system of the gaming machine to display the result obtained for the activation selection input in a numerical prize graphic comprising a static numerical value, the video display system of the gaming machine displaying the numerical prize graphic under control of the display control processing system.
Claims 10-20 recite a gaming machine including:
(a) a video display system;
(b) a player input system;
(c) at least one processor; and
(d) at least one memory device storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to:
(i) cause the video display system to display a number of activation icons, each individually selectable by a player via a touch screen of the player input system, each activation icon displaying and including a respective activation value so that the number of activation icons define an activation value range from a minimum activation value to a maximum activation value, the maximum activation value being greater than the minimum activation value;
(ii) receive an activation selection input from the player input system, the activation selection input selecting one of the number of activation icons;
(iii) in response to the activation selection input, obtain a result for the activation selection input, the obtaining including a first risking a number of credits equal to the respective activation value associated with the selected activation icon, the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value defined by the received activation selection input; and
(iv) where the result for the activation selection input comprises a winning result, cause the video display system to display the result obtained for the activation selection input in a numerical prize graphic comprising a static numerical value.
Claims 19-20 recite a program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer readable data storage devices storing program code, the program code including:
(a) starting graphic program code executable by at least one processor to cause a video display system of a gaming machine to display a number of activation icons, each individually selectable by a player via a touchscreen of a player input system, each activation icon including a respective activation value so that the number of activation icons define an activation value range from a minimum activation value to a maximum activation value, the maximum activation value being greater than the minimum activation value;
(b) activation selection program code executable by the at least one processor to receive an activation selection input from a player input system of the gaming machine, the activation selection input selecting one of the number of activation icons;
(c) result assignment program code executable by the at least one processor to, in response to the activation selection input, the obtaining including first risking a number of credits equal to the respective activation value associated with the selected activation icon, obtain a result for the activation selection input, the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value defined by the received activation selection input; and
(d) result display program code executable by the at least one processor to, where the result for the activation selection input comprises a winning result, cause the video display system to display the result obtained for the activation selection input in a numerical prize graphic comprising a static numerical value.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity. More specifically the underlined claim limitations recite steps of organizing a game by following rules or instructions. Organization of human activity includes social activities. A game is a social activity. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
In addition, the claims recite rules for conducting a wagering game (selecting an activation icon with a wager/risking a number of credits for a prize). Rules for conducting a wagering game is fundamental economic practice.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Claims 1-20 recite additional limitations of a display control processing system with a gaming machine, touchscreen/input of a gaming machine; gaming machine including a video display system, player input system at least one processor and a memory. These limitations are directed to generic gaming machine or components of a generic gaming machine used to implement the abstract idea in an electronic embodiment. The additional elements generally links the abstract idea to an electronic embodiment.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 recite gaming machine including a video display system, player input system at least one processor and a memory
Saffari (US 2003/0050111) discloses that is it is well known routine and conventional for gaming machine to be provided with a display unit, an input device and a controller with a memory and a process that controls the overall operation of the gaming machine (paragraph 2). Saffari also discloses that it is well known or understood that touch screens are used as player inputs (paragraph 43).
The gaming device and components as claimed are used conventionally to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite the abstract idea and implementing the abstract idea electronically. As indicated above, the gaming device and components as claimed are used conventionally to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements in the dependent claims considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Post (US 8,715,061).
Claim 1. Post discloses a method including:
(a) under control of a display control processing system (processor; col. 6:22) associated with a gaming machine, causing a video display system of the gaming machine to display a number of activation icons (20 in Fig. 1) each individually selectable by a player via a touchscreen of a player input system (cols. 2:40-45-3:16) each activation icon displaying and being associated with a respective activation value (i.e. value of 5 cents to $1 in Fig. 1; col. 3:58-65) so that the number of activation icons define an activation value range from a minimum activation value to a maximum activation value, the maximum activation value being greater than the minimum activation value (col. 3:58-65)
(b) receiving an activation selection input at the gaming machine through the player input system of the gaming machine, the activation selection input selecting one of the number of activation icons (cols. 2:40-45-3:16);
(c) in response to the activation selection input and under control of a result generating processing system associated with the gaming machine, obtaining a result for the activation selection input, the obtaining including first risking a number of credits equal to the respective activation value associated with the selected activation icon, the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value defined by the received activation selection input (cols. 2:40-45-3:16); and
(d) where the result for the activation selection input comprises a winning result, causing the video display system of the gaming machine to display the result obtained for the activation selection input in a numerical prize graphic comprising a static numerical value, the video display system of the gaming machine displaying the numerical prize graphic under control of the display control processing system (Fig. 3, col. 3:11-24).
Claim 2. Post discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the number of activation icons are displayed on a primary display device of the video display system and the numerical prize graphic is displayed on the primary display device of the video display system (Figs. 1 and 3).
Claims 10-11, 19. See rejection for claims 1-2 above.
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.
Claims 3-4, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post (US 8,715,061) as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Olive (US 2003/0181237).
Claim 3. Post discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach that the activation icon selected by the received activation selection input comprises a representation of an exterior of an enclosure and the numerical prize graphic includes a representation of opening the enclosure. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. There are a various type of outcome generators such as wheels, reels, cards, dice, balls with ball hopper, tickets etc. Olive discloses a method of selecting a prize by hiding the prize in an enclosure and revealing the prize when a player selects the enclosure (paragraphs 31-32). Olive discloses the player selects a treasure chest by touching it. The chosen treasure chest animates to reveal a first prize (paragraphs 31-32). The graphical animation of opening the enclosure will provide excitement to the player as the outcome is revealed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Post’s invention and incorporate a representation of an exterior of an enclosure and the numerical prize graphic includes a representation of opening the enclosure in order to provide the predictable result of providing excitement to the player.
Claim 4. Post in view Olive discloses the method of claim 3 wherein the numerical prize graphic includes: (a) an initial sequence comprising a representation of at least two additional enclosures in a closed state emerging from the opening of the enclosure; and (b) a value display sequence following the initial sequence, the value display sequence comprising a representation of each of the additional enclosures opening to display a respective static numerical value for each of the additional enclosures (Olive discloses additional chances to choose another treasure chest, in which the treasure chest animates to reveal a prize; paragraph 32).
Claims 12-13. See rejection of claims 3-4 above.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite game rules or a method of organizing human activity. Rather the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the user interface and operation speed of a regulated electronic gaming machines, which is an improvement rooted in a computer technology. Applicant argues that conventional machines require a player to select a wager amount and press a separate play or spin button and wait for mandatary reel spin whereas the present claims integrate wager selections, game initiation and outcome resolution into a single touchscreen interaction. The player touches one of several activation icons that each display the exact number of credit that will be risked. A single touch, places the wager and triggers an outcome. The winning prize is a displayed as a static numerical value with no spinning reels or wheels, eliminating animation delay. The game maintains different RTP schedule and prize schedule for each activation, ensuring regulatory compliance while permitting higher rates of play.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant arguments are directed to a change in game play or a management of a game, not an improvement to a computer technology. The Applicant compares and instant prize outcome resulting from a selection to a traditional slot machine with reels. This is a comparison in game play not a comparison to different computer technology. The claimed invention is similar to an instant lottery ticket, pull tab ticket or a punch hole game in which a winning amount can be displayed instantly based on the player selection. In addition, the use of different RTP schedule and prize schedule for different wager amount to ensure regulatory compliance (which is not claimed) is a management of a game. The claims involve a computer with a graphical user interface displaying icons associated with prize. The graphical user interface is a computer implementation of the abstract idea. Providing user game elements associated with a prize can be implemented without a computer (i.e. using cards, lottery tickets, pull tabs, etc.). The additional element of a graphical user interface considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
35 USC 102
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Post, the wager amount is selected and deducted first using separate wager button before any bubble appears. Only after the wager is locked do the bubbles appear, and the numbers displayed inside those bubbles are prize values scaled to the previously chosen wager, not wager amounts. Thus, Post lacks activation icons that display the wager, and risking credit equal to the displayed value upon selection of the icon.
However, Post discloses that “a variety of icons 20 are displayed having different wager amounts” (col. 2:52-53). “When an icon 20 is touched, the advertised wager is deducted from the player's bank and the hidden prize is revealed and credited to the player's bank” (col. 2:59-69). Therefore, Post displays activation icons that display the wager and risking credit equal to the displayed value upon selection of the icon. Post also explicitly discloses in the flow chart (Fig. 5 step 36) that wager is deducted from player X credits and hidden prize is revealed. This occurs after selectable icons with wager values are displayed and the icons are associated with hidden prizes (step 32).
Applicant argues that Post fails to disclose a single activation selection input with the activation value and immediately triggers the result. However, as indicated above, post discloses that when an icon 20 is touched, the advertised wager is deducted from the player's bank and the hidden prize is revealed and credited to the player's bank.
Applicant argues Post does not disclose that "the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value" where different activation values trigger fundamentally different result identification processes. The claims require more than mere proportional prize scaling; they require distinct result identification processes (e.g., different RNG algorithms, lookup tables, volatility profiles, or prize distributions) depending on the selected activation value range (see Specification 11 [0017], [0068]). The portions of Post cited by the Examiner show only conventional proportional scaling of the same prize schedule, not different result identification processes.
However, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation of, "the result for the activation selection input being identified according to a result identification process corresponding to the activation value" is interpreted that outcome of the selected icon is identified such as displaying the value. This limitation does not require using RNG algorithms, look table etc. The claim does not specify different RNG algorithm how they are used to select and outcome according to each of a different plurality of icons.
Applicant argues that with respect to static numerical value any animated resolution in Post would defeat the claim requirement. However, as indicated in the rejection, Post discloses a static numerical value (Fig. 3, col. 3:11-24). A static numerical value can also be animated (similarly to Applicant’s invention of animating an open chest to reveal a numerical value).
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that Olive’s treasure chests are bonus-round pick objects that appear only after a base-game wager has already been placed and deducted; they do not function as wager-selection/play- initiation icons. Substituting Olive's bonus chests for Post's bet buttons would not produce the claimed activation icons.
However, Post discloses the claimed activation icon. Olive’s reference is relied on for the icon to graphically appear as a treasure chest and opening the treasure chest to reveal a prize.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Post’s invention with Olive’s treasure chest since Post is directed to rapid wager selection and fast play while Olive’s treasure chest animate are deliberately time consuming to build suspense. Introducing Olive’s delay inducing animation into Post’s speed oriented interface would frustrate Post’s principal objective. However, this argument contradict’ s Applicant’s argument to the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant’s claims indicate a graphical representation of opening an enclosure. However, Applicant argues the claimed invention improves a technical problem by eliminating animation displays and increase game speed play. In addition, Post invention is a type of game of providing wager icons with award. The graphical animation of opening the enclosure will provide excitement to the player as the outcome is revealed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Post’s invention and incorporate a representation of an exterior of an enclosure and the numerical prize graphic includes a representation of opening the enclosure in order to provide the predictable result of providing excitement to the player.
Applicant argues that Claims 4 and 13 recite a specific animation sequence of opening the selected closure. Applicant argues that Olive merely describe that the chest are open and presented and does not teach or suggest additional closed enclosure physically emerging or springing out from the inside the just opened selected enclosure. However, this is not claimed. A graphical display of a closed chest to an open chest with a revealed prize is an animation.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights