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 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 19-24 are pending. Claims 1-2, 12, and 20 have been amended, claims 10 and 18 were previously cancelled, claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled, and claims 21-24 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejections under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that i) the claims do not to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2a-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 10-11) and ii) even if the claims recite a judicial exception they are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 11-14). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons in the sections below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims were analyzed and found to recite rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering bonus game which is analogous to a fundamental economic activity that the courts have found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For example, Claim 1 recites the limitations “initiate a set of bonus game events for a second bonus game, wherein a wager for each bonus game event of the set of bonus game events comprises a corresponding game award of the first subset of the plurality of game awards, wherein the corresponding game award is determined based on the user input” which is directed to managing a wager. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 11-14). In particular, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the specification discloses benefits of the instant invention such as “preventing large losses for players of gaming devices and preventing the misuse of gaming devices in money laundering” that solves a unique technical problem within the field of gaming devices (see Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Preventing large losses of gaming devices and preventing the misuse of gaming devices in money laundering through managing a wagering game is not directed to a technical solution to a technical problem but analogous to a fundamental economic activity (e.g., mitigating risk and hedging) that the courts have indicated is directed to an abstract idea of managing a wagering game. At best, the Specification indicates a general statement associated with a gambling business problem as opposed to providing detail as how a solution to a technical problem is achieved. Moreover, the additional elements of the claims such as: “a processor circuit” “memory”, “an input device” and “a display device” of “an EGM” when considered individually and/or as a collection of elements were found to merely invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h). It follows that the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below. For at least the reasons provided and discussed above, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 19-24 under 35 USC 101 has been maintained..
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 10-11 of Claim 1 and in lines 7-8 of Claim 20, the limitation “located within the housing the EGM, user input from” contains a grammatical error. The Examiner suggest the limitation be amended to “within the housing of the EGM”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in lines 17-18, “generate, by a a random number generator of the EGM” which contains a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 19-24 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 directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. (Currently Amended ) A game controller for an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) comprising:
a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:
determine a plurality of game awards for a plurality of winning slot game spins for a first bonus game; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
update a display device located within the housing of the EGM to display a first subset of the plurality of game awards;
receive, via an input devices located within the housing the EGM, user input from a player of the first bonus game, wherein the user input corresponds to the first subset of the plurality of game awards; -certain method of organizing human activity;
initiate a set of bonus game events for a second bonus game, wherein a wager for each bonus game event of the set of bonus game events comprises a corresponding game award of the first subset of the plurality of game awards, wherein the corresponding game award is determined based on the user input; - certain method of organizing human activity;
generate, by a a random number generator of the EGM, a random number for each bonus game event of the set of bonus game events;
for each bonus game event of the set of bonus game events, independently determine a bonus game event result based on the random number for each bonus game event, wherein the volatility of a potential win or loss for the set of bonus game events is reduced for each additional bonus game event determined based on the random number for each bonus game event; - certain method of organizing human activity; and
update the display device of the EGM to display the bonus game event result for each bonus game event;
for each bonus game event result that is a winning result, award bonus game event awards based on the wager for the corresponding bonus game event; and – certain method of organizing human activity;
initiate an electronic funds transfer to a player account associated with the player based on the bonus game event awards. -certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic activity))
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to be recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering bonus game and/or a fundamental economic transaction. Furthermore, at least one of the limitations, as underlined above, recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a processor circuit;” “ a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the processor circuit to:” “via an input devices located within the housing the EGM” “by a a random number generator of the EGM” and “update the display device of the EGM to display the bonus game event result for each bonus game event;” recite limitations that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). The remaining limitations such as: “update a display device located within the housing of the EGM to display a first subset of the plurality of game awards;” and “update the display device of the EGM to display the bonus game event result for each bonus game event;” are found to recite insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 the elements of “a processor circuit” and “a memory comprising machine-readable instructions” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements does not transform the abstract idea into significantly more but invoke highly generalized computer components to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (h)). For instance, the prior art of Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a processor circuit and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions” are conventional components known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 12 and 20, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 discussed above. However, Claims 12 and 20 are directed to the gaming device and method embodiments of substantially the same subject matter. It follows that for substantially the same reasons as discussed above, independent Claims 12 and 20 are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24, the additional limitations have been analyzed and reviewed. The Examiner finds that each of the limitations further recite additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a), 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite an abstract idea 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
Prosecution Insights