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 .
The Applicant’s argument received on 10/28/2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanborn et al (US 2021/0166529) in view of Lee et al (US 2013/0084940).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 21: Sanborn et al discloses a gaming machine for providing a wager-based game to a player, comprising: a cabinet having an interior (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0048]-[0058]); a power supply, disposed within the interior of the cabinet, receiving power from an external power source (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0048]-[0058]); memory, disposed within the interior of the cabinet, storing non-transitory game software used to generate the wager-based game on the gaming machine, a plurality of virtual reel strips, a paytable, and a set of winning paylines associated with the wager-based game, each virtual strip having a plurality of symbol positions, each symbol position having an associated symbol from a set of available symbols (see paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0019], and [0060]-[0062]); a display mounted in the cabinet and being electrically coupled to, and receiving power from the power supply, the display configured to display a play grid having a plurality of cells arranged in a plurality of columns, one of the virtual reel strips being associated with one of the columns (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0048]-[0058]); a control panel establishing a user interface configured to allow the player to select a wager option from a set of available wager options, wherein the set of available options includes a plurality of bet level options having an associated wager and a mystery bet option (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0048]-[0058] and [0063]); and, a gaming machine controller, including a processor, disposed within the interior of the cabinet and being coupled to the power supply, the display, and the memory, the gaming machine controller controlling play of a plurality of instances of the wager-based game, wherein for each instance of the wager-based game, the non-transitory game software controls the processor to: establish a bet level and a wager amount as a function of the selected wager option, wherein the bet level is randomly established if the mystery bet option is selected by the user, randomly establish an outcome for the instance of the wager-based game, the outcome including a stop position associated with each virtual reel strip on the associated column resulting in a game symbol in each cell of the play grid, and, analyze the outcome of the instance of the wager-based game and provide an award to the player as a function of the outcome, the paytable, the bet level, and the winning paylines (see paragraphs [0005], [0012], [0060]-[0062], [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a gaming machine with display, input, and various bet and wager level options selectable by the player’s input and wherein outcome is determined by symbols and paylines).
In an analogous invention, Lee et al teaches establishing a bet level and a wager amount as a function of the selected wager option, wherein the bet level is randomly established if the mystery bet option is selected by the user, randomly establish an outcome for the instance of the wager-based game (see paragraphs [0008], [0104], showing mystery bet, and random occurrence for determining random outcomes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Sanborn’s wagering game as taught by Lee’s mystery bet for the purpose of determining and affecting the outcome of the wagering game. This yields the expected result of increasing the user’s satisfaction and enjoyment of the wagering game.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the randomly established bet level is selected from the plurality of bet level options (see paragraphs [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a plurality of bet and wager levels being selected).
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the plurality of bet level options includes a base bet level and multiples of the base bet level (see paragraphs [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a plurality of bet and wager levels being selected).
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the base bet level and the multiples of the base bet level have an associated wager (see paragraphs [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a plurality of bet and wager levels being selected).
Regarding claims 5 and 16: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the wager amount associated with the mystery bet option is equal to the associated wager of the randomly established bet level (see paragraphs [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a plurality of bet and wager levels being selected).
Regarding claims 6 and 17: Sanborn et al discloses wherein each bet level option has an associated probability (see paragraph [0004], showing percentage associated with wager options).
Regarding claims 7 and 18: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the associated probabilities are equal (see paragraph [0004], showing percentage associated with wager options).
Regarding claims 8 and 19: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the associated probabilities are weighted, at least one probability is different from another one of the associated probabilities (see paragraph [0004], showing percentage associated with wager options).
Regarding claims 9 and 20: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the wager amount associated with the mystery bet option is a predetermined amount (see paragraphs [0119]-[0125], and claim 2, showing a plurality of bet and wager levels being selected).
Regarding claim 10: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the user interface includes a plurality of physical buttons (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0048]-[0058], [0063], and [0067]).
Regarding claim 11: Sanborn et al discloses wherein the display includes a touchscreen display, and the user interface is implemented as virtual buttons on the touchscreen display (see paragraphs [0048] and [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/28/2025 with respect to the limitation of Mystery bet level have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior arts of record do not teach the limitations of “wherein the bet level is randomly established if the mystery bet option is selected by the user”, the examiner disagrees. The examiner point out that both Sanborn and Lee both teaches and at least suggest the limitation of bet level being influenced based on mystery bet option.
Sanborn in claim 2 for example explicitly teaches that:
“An electronic gaming device, comprising: a display system including one or more displays; and a control system including one or more processors, the control system being configured for: determining which slot symbols will be presented on the display system for an instance of a slot game, the symbols comprising one or more mystery symbols; receiving an indication that a wager has been received; displaying, on the display system, moving symbols, landing of the one or more mystery symbols, and a bet meter; presenting, based on determining that the wager is less than a first bet level, the bet meter in a first state indicating that an award is unavailable; presenting, based on determining that the wager is greater than or equal to the first bet level, the bet meter in a second state indicating that the award can be triggered; presenting, based on determining that the wager is greater than or equal to the first bet level, a first mystery symbol revealing a first revealed mystery symbol image, wherein the award corresponds to the first revealed mystery symbol image; and presenting, based on determining that the wager is greater than or equal to the first bet level and on displaying the first revealed mystery symbol image, the award.”, which the examiner has interpreted to teach the limitation of bet level being altered and bet meter with respect to mystery symbol being revealed, where the bet alteration is based on the mystery symbol being revealed.
Further Lee in paragraph [0104], teaches:
“A mystery bet level pool will need to be created and updated after every spin according to the following equation if the spin occurs in the last X games (X being the ResetPoolGameNumber used to calculate the reset multiplier): MysteryBetLevelPool+=CurrentBetLevel-1”, which explicitly discloses the limitation of mystery bet level. The examiner construes that the mystery bet level teaches the bet level based on the mystery bet as taught by Lee. The examiner has interpreted this to teach the limitation as presented by the Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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 on (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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715